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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7-10, 13-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Suzuki (US 10,497,594 B2).
Consider claim 1. Suzuki teaches a container handling vehicle (8), comprising: a lower part (lower portion of 24, see fig. 5) comprising: a width and a length that form a vehicle footprint of the container handling vehicle (define by region between travel units 35, see fig. 6); a storage space (proximate 50 in fig. 5) configured to accommodate a storage container (50); a first set of wheels (32a) oriented in a first direction and a second set of wheels (32b) oriented in a second direction; and an upper part (26 and upper portion of 24, see fig. 5), disposed vertically above the lower part, comprising a protruding section (26), wherein the protruding section is configured to extend beyond the lower part, and wherein the protruding section comprises at least one of: a battery, a battery slot configured to house a battery, or a sensor (47, 48) configured to determine a position of the container handling vehicle (relative to an object; see column 10, lines 9-11).
Consider claim 7. Suzuki teaches that the protruding section extends beyond the lower part in a length direction or a width direction (see fig. 5).
Consider claim 8. Suzuki teaches that the first set of wheels are disposed in a first horizontal plane; the second set of wheels are disposed in a second horizontal plane, and the first horizontal plane is separated from the second horizontal plane in a vertical direction (via 30; see column 9, lines 24-34).
Consider claim 9. Suzuki teaches that the upper part comprises a recessed section (space proximate reference characters 42-46 in fig. 5), wherein the recessed section is configured to receive a protruding section of another container handling vehicle.
Consider claim 10. Suzuki teaches that the recessed section extends across a whole width or length of the container handling vehicle (see figs. 5 and 6).
Consider claim 13. Suzuki teaches that the upper part comprises a lifting device (45) that is configured to raise the storage container from beneath the first set of wheels and the second set of wheels into the container handling vehicle (see fig. 10).
Consider claim 14. Suzuki teaches that the lifting device comprises: a gripping device (46A) configured to lift and lower the storage container, and a lifting motor (drive for belt/rope/wire; see column 10, lines 4-6) configured to raise and lower the gripping device.
Consider claim 15. Suzuki teaches that the lifting motor is disposed in the upper part of the container handling vehicle (at 45).
Consider claim 16. Suzuki teaches that the storage space is disposed in the lower part of the container handling vehicle (proximate 50).
Consider claim 17. Suzuki teaches that the first set of wheels and the second set of wheels are arranged around a periphery of the storage space that accommodates the storage container (32a at bottom of fig. 6 and 32b at left of fig. 6).
Consider claim 20. Suzuki teaches an automated storage and retrieval system (see fig. 2) comprising the container handling vehicle of claim 1 (8, see rejection of claim 1 above).
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 10,497,594 B2) in view of Pastoor et al. (US 2014/0217977 A1), hereafter referred to as Pastoor.
Consider claim 11. Suzuki does not explicitly teach that the protruding section is configured to engage with a charging station as specifically claimed. Pastoor teaches a protruding section (5) configured to engage with a charging station (30) to charge a main battery of a container handling vehicle (2, see paragraph [0048]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Suzuki’s vehicle to engage with a charging station as taught by Pastoor in order to automatically recharge power to the vehicle.
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 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 and 13-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,227,356. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims use equivalent claim language, the instant claims encompass the patented claims, and elements of the instant claims may be found in multiple lines of dependency in the patented claims.
Claims 1, 2, and 9-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11-14, 16, and 18-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,912,501. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims use equivalent claim language, the instant claims encompass the patented claims, and elements of the instant claims may be found in multiple lines of dependency in the patented claims.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,597,597. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims use equivalent claim language, the instant claims encompass the patented claims, and elements of the instant claims may be found in multiple lines of dependency in the patented claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6, 12, 18, and 19 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and proper Terminal Disclaimers are filed (see Double Patenting rejections above).
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