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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 12-17 in the reply filed on 9/2/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 18-31 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kufner et al. (US 10,017,062 B2), hereafter referred to as Kufner.
Consider claim 12. Kufner teaches a vehicle (F) for a storage system, wherein the vehicle comprises: a rechargeable power source (battery, see title and abstract); and a first charge-receiving element, a second charge-receiving element, and a third charge-receiving element (116, see fig. 4C), wherein the first charge-receiving element, the second charge-receiving element, and the third charge-receiving element are arranged on a bottom section (U) of the vehicle and connected to the rechargeable power source, the first charge-receiving element is centrally arranged on the bottom section (center slot 116 in fig. 4C) and the second charge-receiving element and the third charge- receiving element are arranged at opposite sides of the first charge-receiving element (left and right slot 116 in fig. 4C).
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 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kufner (US 10,017,062 B2) in view of Lindbo et al. (US 10,000,337 B2), hereafter referred to as Lindbo.
Consider claim 13. Kufner does not explicitly teach first and second sets of wheels. Lindbo teaches a first set of wheels (116) and a second set of wheels (118) for moving a vehicle (30) upon a rail grid (14) of a storage system; wherein the first set of wheels is displaceable in a vertical direction (via 180, 184, 188) between a first position (lowered) in which the first set of wheels is arranged to move the vehicle in a first direction, a second position (intermediate), in which the first set of wheels and the second set of wheels are in contact with the rail grid, and a third position (raised) in which the second set of wheels is arranged to move the vehicle in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (see column 10, lines 27-37). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Kufner’s vehicle with first and second sets of wheels as taught by in order to move along perpendicular rails of a rail grid to store and remove articles.
Consider claim 14. Kufner teaches that when the vehicle is positioned above a charging station (10) of the storage system, two of the first charge-receiving element, the second charge-receiving element, or the third charge-receiving element (116) are arranged such that two charge-providing elements (14) of the charging station are connectable to the first charge-receiving element and the second charge-receiving element or the third charge-receiving element based on an orientation in which the vehicle is arranged on the rail grid (14 engaged with 116).
Consider claim 15. Kufner teaches that two of the first charge-receiving element, the second charge-receiving element, or the third charge-receiving element and the two charge-providing elements of the charging station are connected when the vehicle is positioned above the charging station (see fig. 1B), and the two charge-providing elements are in a fourth position (raised via 16).
Consider claim 16. Kufner in view of Lindbo teaches that the two of the first charge-receiving element, the second charge-receiving element, or the third charge-receiving element and the two charge-providing elements of the charging station are connected when the vehicle is positioned above the charging station (see Kufner’s fig. 1B), and the two charge-providing elements are in the fourth position (raised via Kufner’s 16) and the first set of wheels is in the first position or the second position (for example, with 180, 184, and 188 lowered).
Consider claim 17. Kufner teaches that the first charge-receiving element, the second charge-receiving element, and the third charge-receiving element comprise at least one power socket (116), and the two charge-providing elements comprise power pins (14).
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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 12-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,240,695. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims use equivalent language and the instant claims encompass the patented claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN D SNELTING whose telephone number is (571)270-7015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-4:30 EST.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571)272-7097. 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.
/JONATHAN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights