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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 13 recites the limitation "the third cam guide and fourth cam guide" in lines 2-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 16 recites “The platform vehicle of claim 15. Claim 15 depends from claim 14 and claim 14 is directed to “A method of operating a platform vehicle for a robotic system of a warehouse”. Claim 16 is therefore an apparatus claim depending from a method claim, it is unclear whether claim 16 is directed to a platform vehicle or to a method of operating a platform vehicle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 and 14-15 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for
allowance: Moulin (US 2020/0180863 A1) is considered the closest prior art of record to the instant application,
Regarding independent claim 1, The prior art references alone do not teach a platform vehicle for a robotic system of a warehouse, able to move vertically up and down two racks of the warehouse. With first and second cam guides configured to constrain the movement of the first engagement assembly such that as the first engagement assembly is moved towards its neutral position in the longitudinal direction the first cam guide and second cam guides the first and second engagement assemblies towards its neutral position in the transverse direction. Moulin discloses a platform vehicle for moving vertically up and down two racks of a warehouse with engagement assemblies but does not disclose cam guides able to guide the movement of the engagement assemblies as they are moved towards the neutral position. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to combine the prior art together and to modify such a combination in such a way as to arrive at the claimed invention without the benefit of the applicant’s disclosure.
Regarding independent claim 14, The prior art references alone do not teach a method of operating a platform vehicle for a robotic system of a warehouse, the platform vehicle configured to vertically traverse racks of the warehouse, the method comprising retracting in the longitudinal direction a first and second engagement assembly, and the use of a first and second cam guide to constrain the movement of the first and second engagement assemblies as they are moved towards the neutral position. Moulin discloses a platform vehicle for moving vertically up and down two racks of a warehouse with engagement assemblies but does not disclose cam guides able to guide the movement of the engagement assemblies as they are moved towards the neutral position. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to combine the prior art together and to modify such a combination in such a way as to arrive at the claimed invention without the benefit of the applicant’s disclosure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN SALVADOR MOSCOSO whose telephone number is (571)272-8604. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:00.
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.
/J.S.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 3652
/SAUL RODRIGUEZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights