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 Status
Claims 1-5 and 7-16 are pending in this application. Claim 6 was canceled; all remaining claims stand unamended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see arguments/remarks, filed September 12, 2025, with respect to an objection to the drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the drawings has been withdrawn. Applicant has canceled claim 6 which triggered the objection and amended the specification to no longer recite a reference character. In the absence of a claimed “auto-pick robot” no requirement is imposed to depict such a robot in applicant’s drawings or to identify it with a reference character.
Applicant's arguments filed September 12, 2025, regarding rejections of claims 1-5, 7-8, and 11-16 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues generally that primary reference Lindbo fails to anticipate aspects of applicant’s independent claims 1 and 14. We maintain our rejections of the claims, addressing applicant’s specific arguments in turn below.
Applicant first argues that “Lindbo fails to disclose, teach, or suggest a first conveyor extending from a first end below the port column to a second end below a second column, as independent claims 1 and 14 recite.” A port column is a column of a dense grid storage system (such as applicant’s and Lindbo’s) to or from which storage containers may be transferred into or out of the grid, as per applicant’s specification P3/L30-32. As can be seen in figs. 9-10, all the numbered grid cells (apart from those related to container 80 which extend outside the grid) are under columns, and per fig. 9 overhead robots can access various of these cells, depositing containers from above to various conveyors below, which qualifies these columns as port columns. Compare for example to Lindbo’s fig. 3, which depicts a block of non-port columns stacked solidly with containers. As the structure we map to applicant’s “first conveyor” (including conveyor segments 94, 96, and 97) extends beneath at least three columns, all of which are plainly port columns in fig. 9, and at least one of which is plainly a port column in fig. 10, we hold that this structure satisfies the requirement of the quoted limitation.
Next, applicant argues that “Lindbo fails to disclose, teach, or suggest a second conveyor having a first end positioned adjacent the first end of the first conveyor and a second end positioned outside an outer periphery of the framework structure.” In our previous action, we stated as part of our rejection that Lindbo discloses that conveyor segment 97 can be raised or lowered, and in a raised state is adjacent to the conveyor we identified as the second conveyor of the claim. Applicant further argues, “However, paragraph [0076] of Lindbo merely mentions that a storage container 70 may be elevated. The conveyor 97 has not been shown to be raised to the level of the unnumbered conveyor. Furthermore, as Lindbo fails to disclose the first conveyor recited in the independent claims as above, Lindbo does not disclose a second conveyor having a first end positioned adjacent the first end of the first conveyor.” Again, we must maintain our rejection. First, we are maintaining our identification of the first conveyor as comprising Lindbo’s conveyor segment 97. Second, Lindbo recites in its paragraph [0076], “The merge station conveyor 97 with the empty storage container 70 can then be elevated by a lifting mechanism”. This recitation contradicts applicant’s argument that conveyor 97 is not elevatable. Moreover, as seen in Lindbo’s fig. 10, the “second conveyor” bearing container 80 which extends out of the storage grid (more clearly depicted in fig. 9) ends immediately adjacent to conveyor segment 97. It is easy to see from fig. 10 that when conveyor segment 97 of the “first conveyor” is elevated, it will be adjacent to the end of the second conveyor. This arrangement can be even more plainly seen in fig. 12, wherein conveyor segment 97 is elevated and is in fact at the same conveyor level as the second conveyor extending out of the grid.
Applicant next traverses all dependent claim rejections on the purported basis of Lindbo’s failure to anticipate the independent claims rather than on specific traversals of the individual rejections. We again maintain all dependent claim rejections on the basis of maintaining our rejections of the independent claim rejections.
Because we maintain all our rejections on the same grounds as in the first action, we make this action final.
[Note: the following rejections along with the Allowable Subject Matter section below are copied verbatim from the first action.]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 9-10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lindbo, et al., US 2016/0129587 (hereinafter Lindbo).
Regarding claim 1,
Lindbo discloses:
An automated storage and retrieval system comprising a framework structure and a delivery system, wherein the framework structure comprises: upright members, horizontal members and a storage volume comprising storage columns and port columns (columns above 91, 94, 95 in fig. 9, per [0076]-[0077]) arranged in rows between the upright members and the horizontal members; Lindbo discloses these basic (unnumbered) structural elements of a dense storage facility in fig. 5, apart from the port columns. Lindbo additionally designates some columns as containing special numbered ports in figs. 9, 10, and 16-20 in [0050]-[0055] and by implication in [0076]. Note that Lindbo sometimes uses reference character 70 to indicate ports (e.g. in [0050]) and sometimes as storage containers. According to our interpretation, a “port column” is any column from which a storage container can be deposited to or retrieved from an underlying conveyor. A “storage column” is any column in which a storage container may be stored; this includes all port columns because storage containers may be stored both above conveyors and on conveyors when the conveyor is not active.
a rail system arranged across the top of framework structure, the rail system comprising a first set of parallel rails (160: fig. 9) arranged to guide movement of container handling vehicles (40: figs. 5,9) in a first direction across the top of the frame structure, and a second set of parallel rails (160: fig. 9) arranged perpendicular to the first set of rails to guide movement of the container handling vehicles in a second direction which is perpendicular to the first direction, and access openings to the columns, the container handling vehicles being operable to raise a storage container (10,70,80,90; Figs. 5-6,8-15; [0076]-[0077]) from the storage columns, and transport the storage container above the storage columns to the port column, and lower the storage container into the port column;Lindbo discloses this rail system in figs. 5 and depicts it more clearly in fig. 9. The orthogonal grid on which vehicles 40 operate maps to the two perpendicular sets of parallel rails of the claim. As can be seen in fig. 9, two of Lindbo’s vehicles 40 are poised above transfer stations (port columns) 91. Lindbo also discloses this lowering in figs. 16-20 and in [0081]-[0082].
the delivery system comprises at least one conveyor system (91-97: fig. 10) comprising: a first conveyor (94,96-97: fig.10) located below the rail system and extending from a first end below the port column to a second end below a second column, the first end arranged to receive the storage container through the port column, the first conveyor comprising a first drive device for moving the storage container on the first conveyor between the first and second ends;Applicant’s “first conveyor system” comprises all Lindbo’s conveyors and conveyor elements disclosed in figs. 9-10 We consider applicant’s “first conveyor” to comprise Lindbo’s adjacent conveyor elements 94 through 97, which are seen in figs. 9-10 to be joined at a horizontal level to form a connected conveying surface that covers multiple ports (including port 94 from which storage containers are taken to the rest of the dense storage facility). In [0076] Lindbo discloses that its several conveyor units move storage containers from place to place; this means the conveyors are powered, and a powered conveyor must comprise a drive unit even if the drive unit is not explicitly disclosed. This constitutes the disclosure of the claimed first drive device.
a second conveyor (fig. 9: unnumbered, extending out of the facility and including transfer station 92) aligned with the first conveyor and arranged as an extension of the first conveyor, the second conveyor having a first end positioned adjacent the first end of the first conveyor and a second end positioned outside an outer periphery of the framework structure, the second conveyor comprising a second drive device for moving the storage container on the second conveyor between first and seconds ends of the second conveyor;Lindbo discloses an unnumbered second conveyor in fig. 9 that is connected to the end of the first conveyor 97 when first conveyor 97 is raised to the level of the unnumbered conveyor extending outside the storage structure per [0076]. The first end of the second conveyor is at location 92 in fig. 9, and the second end is beyond the limits of the figure. In [0076] Lindbo discloses that its several conveyor units move storage containers from place to place; this means the conveyors are powered, and a powered conveyor must comprise a drive unit even if the drive unit is not explicitly disclosed. This constitutes the disclosure of the claimed second drive device.
and wherein the at least one conveyor system is arranged for returning the storage container through the port column by moving the storage container from the second end of the second conveyor to the first end of the first conveyor via the second end of the first conveyor.Lindbo discloses this operation in [0076]. We map the second conveyor to the unnumbered conveyor extending out of the drawing in fig. 10 with its second end out of the drawing and its first end at location 92, and the first conveyor to adjoining conveyor elements 97, 96 and 94. According to this mapping, the first end of the first conveyor is at 94 and the second end of the first conveyor is 97.
Regarding claim 3,
Lindbo discloses the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the second end (97: fig. 10) of the first conveyor (94,96-97: fig. 10) is located below a storage column.Lindbo discloses in fig. 10 that location 97, mapped as the second end of the first conveyor, is located at the base of a column which is storage column because a storage container may be stored at location 97.
Regarding claim 4,
Lindbo discloses the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the second end of the first conveyor 94,96-97: fig. 10) is located below a port column (97: fig. 10).97 is also a port column because this column gives access to a conveyor.
Regarding claim 5,
Lindbo discloses the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the second end of the second conveyor is adapted for handling of the storage container by at least one of a robotic operator and a human operator.Lindbo discloses in [0081] that its robotic load handlers initiate a transfer process that results in a storage container being transferred to its conveyor system. All Lindbo’s conveyors are adapted for handling of containers by robotic operators and/or human operators or both per [0031] and [0033].
Regarding claim 14,
Lindbo discloses:
A method for transporting storage containers (10,70,80,90; Figs. 5-6,8-15) in an automated storage and retrieval system comprising a framework structure (fig. 5) and a delivery system (figs. 10-14),
wherein the framework structure comprises: upright members, horizontal members, and a storage volume comprising storage columns and port columns (91-97: fig. 10) arranged in rows between the upright members and the horizontal members;Lindbo discloses these basic (unnumbered) structural elements of a dense storage facility in fig. 5, apart from the port columns. Lindbo additionally designates some columns as containing special numbered ports in figs. 9, 10, and 16-20 in [0050]-[0055] and by implication in [0076]. Note that Lindbo sometimes uses reference character 70 to indicate ports (e.g. in [0050]) and sometimes as storage containers. According to our interpretation, a “port column” is any column from which a storage container can be deposited to or retrieved from an underlying conveyor. A “storage column” is any column in which a storage container may be stored; this includes all port columns because storage containers may be stored both above conveyors and on conveyors when the conveyor is not active.
a rail system arranged across the top of framework structure, the rail system comprising a first set of parallel rails (160: fig. 9) arranged to guide movement of container handling vehicles in a first direction across the top of the frame structure, and a second set of parallel rails (160: fig. 9) arranged perpendicular to the first set of rails to guide movement of the container handling vehicles (40: figs. 5,9) in a second direction which is perpendicular to the first direction, and access openings to the columns, the container handling vehicles being operable to raise a storage container from the storage columns, and transport the storage container above the storage columns to the port column (91-97: fig. 10), and lower the storage container into the port column;Lindbo discloses this rail system in figs. 5 and depicts it more clearly in fig. 9. The orthogonal grid on which vehicles 40 operate maps to the two perpendicular sets of parallel rails of the claim. As can be seen in fig. 9, two of Lindbo’s vehicles 40 are poised above transfer stations (port columns) 91. Lindbo also discloses this lowering in figs. 16-20 and in [0081]-[0082].
the delivery system comprises at least one conveyor system (91-97: fig. 10) comprising: a first conveyor (94,96,97: fig. 10) located below the rail system and extending from a first end below the port column to a second end below a second column, the first end arranged to receive the storage container through the port column, the first conveyor comprising a first drive device for moving the storage container on the first conveyor between the first and second ends;Applicant’s “first conveyor system” comprises all Lindbo’s conveyors and conveyor elements disclosed in figs. 9-10 We consider applicant’s “first conveyor” to comprise Lindbo’s adjacent conveyor elements 94, 96, and 97, which are seen in figs. 9-10 to be joined at a horizontal level (when unit 97 is raised per [0076]) to form a connected conveying surface that connects these locations. Since Lindbo’s conveyors are powered and since powered conveyors necessarily comprise drive devices, this constitutes the disclosure of the claimed first drive device.
a second conveyor (fig. 9: unnumbered, extending out of the facility and connected to transfer station 92) aligned with the first conveyor and arranged as an extension of the first conveyor, the second conveyor having a first end (92: fig. 10) positioned adjacent the first end (97: fig. 10) of the first conveyor and a second end positioned outside an outer periphery of the framework structure, the second conveyor comprising a second drive device for moving the storage container on the second conveyor between first and seconds ends of the second conveyor;Lindbo discloses an unnumbered second conveyor in fig. 9 that is connected to the end of the first conveyor 97 when first conveyor 97 is raised to the level of the unnumbered conveyor extending outside the storage structure per [0076]. The first end of the second conveyor is at location 92 in fig. 10. Again, a powered conveyor necessarily comprises a drive device, so the second conveyor comprises the claimed second drive device..
wherein the at least one conveyor system is arranged for returning the storage container through the port column by moving the storage container from the second end of the second conveyor to the first end of the first conveyor via the second end of the first conveyor, Lindbo discloses this operation in [0076]. We map the second conveyor to the unnumbered conveyor extending out of the drawing in fig. 10 with its second out of the drawing and its first end at location 92, and the first conveyor to adjoining conveyor elements 97, 96, and 94. According to this mapping, the first end of the first conveyor is at 94 and the second end of the first conveyor is 97.
wherein the method comprises: raising, using a first container handling vehicle, a first storage container from a storage column; transporting, using the first container handling vehicle, the first storage container, on the rail system to the port column;Lindbo discloses the retrieval of required storage containers from storage and their subsequent delivery to a port column in [0050]-[0052].
lowering, using the first container handling vehicle, the first storage container through the port column onto the first end of the first conveyor;Lindbo discloses this lowering in figs. 16-20 and in [0081]-[0082], but it also occurs according to [0050]-[0052] with respect to port 91 in fig. 9, which can be seen to have a robotic vehicle 40 poised above it having lowered the storage container through the port column.
moving, using the first drive device and the second drive device, the first storage container from the first end of the first conveyor to the second end of the second conveyor;Lindbo discloses this movement from one conveyor to another in [0076].
moving, using the first drive device and the second drive device, the first storage container from the second end of the second conveyor to the first end of the first conveyor via the second end of the first conveyor;Lindbo discloses this movement from one conveyor to another in [0076].
and returning the first storage container to the framework structure by lifting, using a second container handling vehicle, the first storage container through the port columnLindbo discloses returning storage containers to the dense storage grid once more in [0040]-[0043].
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 2 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindbo.
Regarding claim 2,
Lindbo discloses the limitations of claim 1, but not all aspects of:
wherein the first drive device is operated independently of the second drive device.While Lindbo discloses multiple conveyors, it does not explicitly disclose independent drive devices for the multiple conveyors.
Lindbo teaches the limitation by implication:
wherein the first drive device is operated independently of the second drive device.While Lindbo does not explicitly teach independent drive units for independent conveyors, it can naturally be assumed that discrete conveyor systems have their own drive units. This independence is widespread and commonplace in the art. Even conveyors that are taught to always work in cooperation will likely have independent drive units that must be actively controlled to work in concert. Moreover, in [0076] Lindbo teaches that its merge station conveyor 97 (i.e. a unit of applicant’s “first conveyor”) can be physically elevated by a lifting device to cooperate in transferring a storage container from the merge station conveyor to another unnumbered conveyor (applicant’s “second conveyor”) seen in fig. 9. Since the two conveyors are only sometimes in physical contact, it follows necessarily that the two conveyors have separate drive units that operate independently.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the conveyors of Lindbo wherein the first drive device is operated independently of the second drive device because separate conveyors that are individually operable enable a wider variety of conveyance tasks. For example, the first conveyor may be operated to transfer containers to and from the dense storage facility to picking or order fulfillment workstations while the second is employed to bring containers from external sources into the facility from the outside, and in such a case it would be wasteful to operate both conveyors in lockstep. Similarly, one conveyor can be used as a buffering area to store containers while the other is operated independently, and both these capabilities require independent drive units for the separate conveyors.
Regarding claim 15,
Lindbo discloses the limitations of claim 14, but not all aspects of:
wherein the method further comprises lowering, using the second container handling vehicle, a second storage container through the port column onto the first end of the first conveyor, when the first storage container is on the second end of the first conveyorWhile it can be generally assumed that a system capable of lowering one container from a storage facility to a conveyor from one of a plurality of robotic vehicles can lower a second container from a second vehicle, Lindbo does not explicitly disclose the lowering of a container while another container is on a different part of the conveyor.
wherein the method further comprises lowering, using the second container handling vehicle, a second storage container through the port column onto the first end of the first conveyor, when the first storage container is on the second end of the first conveyorIt can be seen in Lindbo’s figs. 9-10 that a container placed at one end of one of its conveyors does not interfere with a placement at the other end; indeed, figs. 9-10 disclose storage containers on both ends of the conveyor as claimed; these containers were presumably all lowered from the rails above as the first container was. Additionally, Lindbo discloses two ports 91 in figs. 9-10 which can receive storage containers lowered from above, so the two different robots depicted in fig. 9 can lower two containers to such ports either simultaneously or serially. Moreover, it is routine in warehouse operations for a particular work operation to be repeatable an indefinite number of times, and Lindbo has already disclosed the first such operation of lowering a first container from a first vehicle. For these reasons it is unnecessary for Lindbo to explicitly disclose the lowering of a second container according to the limitations of claim 15, especially when no relation or linkage has been established between the handling of the first and second containers in the instant specification or in the claim.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the method of Lindbo wherein the method further comprises lowering, using the second container handling vehicle, a second storage container through the port column onto the first end of the first conveyor, when the first storage container is on the second end of the first conveyor as taught by Lindbo, because supplying a second storage container at the same time or shortly after supplying a first storage container enables increased efficiency in order fulfillment tasks. For example, a particular order fulfillment task may require access to both a first and a second storage container, which access may be most efficiently provided by depositing both containers, and because a second order fulfillment task may be rendered more efficient by prestocking a second container for the second task at one end of a conveyor at the same time as the first container for the first task has been transferred to the other end of the conveyor for fulfillment.
Regarding claim 16,
Lindbo teaches the limitations of claim 15, but not all aspects of:
wherein the method further comprises leaving the second container handling vehicle in position above the port column after lowering the second storage container onto the first end of the first conveyorWhile Lindbo is plainly fully capable of not moving a second handling vehicle, it does not teach this lack of movement explicitly.
Lindbo teaches the limitation by implication:wherein the method further comprises leaving the second container handling vehicle in position above the port column after lowering the second storage container onto the first end of the first conveyorNowhere does Lindbo disclose the necessary movement of one of its robotic vehicles after an operation takes place, and indeed it is assumable that until a subsequent operation requires the movement of the vehicle it will remain where it is. Moreover, in fig. 9 Lindbo discloses a storage container at the base of the port column with port 91 and a robotic vehicle 40 directly above it, presumably remaining there as claimed after lowering the storage container to port 91.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to leave the second container handling vehicle in position above the port column after lowering the second storage container onto the first end of the first conveyor, as taught by Lindbo, because having left the robot in position, if a storage container is processed at a workstation on the conveyor system, the container’s subsequent return to the dense storage facility will be rendered more efficient if the robot remains in position to raise the storage container up without having to return from some other location.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindbo in view of Fjeldheim, et al., WO 2018069282 (hereinafter Fjeldheim) and further in view of Hognaland, et al., US 2019/0300286 (hereinafter Hognaland).
Regarding claim 7,
Lindbo discloses the limitations of claim 1, but not:
wherein the second conveyor further comprising weighing devices to weigh the storage containersLindbo’s conveyors do not comprise weighing devices.
Fjeldheim, an invention in the same field as the instant application, discloses:
wherein the second conveyor (19e: fig. 7) further comprising weighing devices (14: fig. 7) to weigh the storage containersFjeldheim discloses in the context of a similar dense storage facility (fig. 1), conveyors configured with weighing sensors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Lindbo’s conveyors wherein the second conveyor further comprising weighing devices to weigh the storage containers, as taught by Fjeldheim because as Hognaland observes, such sensors can be used for “obtaining a confirmation of the number of remaining product items in the storage bin or for computing of the delivery cost of the order.” These are commonplace requirements in warehouse order fulfilment whose provision would be appreciated as advantages by a person of ordinary skill in the art. Because the provision of weight sensors in conveying devices is well known, the combination with Lindbo’s conveyors would yield routine and predictable results.
Regarding claim 8,
Lindbo in view of Fjeldheim and Hognaland teaches the limitations of claim 7, and also:
wherein the weighing devices (14: fig. 7) are positioned between a support structure of the second conveyor and a mounting surface of the support structure.Fjeldheim teaches this arrangement in fig. 7. We consider the unnumbered rectangular box directly above weight sensor 14 and below conveyor 19e to be a mounting surface of the support structure to which the sensor is mounted, and the frame below sensor 14 to comprise another aspect of the support structure in between which elements the sensor is situated.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindbo in view of Schuster, Thomas, EP 1205410 (hereinafter Schuster).
Regarding claim 11,
Lindbo discloses the limitations of claim 1, but not:
wherein each of the conveyors is comprising two parallel conveyor-halves, each conveyor half comprising a drive device adapted to move the conveyor halfLindbo’s conveyors are not split in parallel halves with separate drives.
Schuster, an invention in the field of conveyors, teaches:
wherein each of the conveyors (3ab: fig. 1) is comprising two parallel conveyor-halves, each conveyor half comprising a drive device adapted to move the conveyor halfSchuster’s conveyor halves are taught to comprise independent drive units in [0013].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Lindbo’s conveyors wherein each of the conveyors is comprising two parallel conveyor-halves, each conveyor half comprising a drive device adapted to move the conveyor half, as taught by Schuster because such a conveyor enables the rotation of objects on the conveyor, a desirable feature for many warehouse and industrial applications and may also provide flexibility in conveying storage containers of different sizes. Since when both drives are driven at the same speed the effect is that of a conventional single-drive conveyor, no interference with the functionality disclosed by Lindbo would take place if Schuster’s conveyors replaced Lindbo’s, and so the combination would yield routine and predictable results.
Regarding claim 12,
Lindbo in view of Schuster teaches the limitations of claim 11, and but not all aspects of:
wherein the drive devices are positioned between the two parallel conveyor-halvesWhile Schuster does not illustrate its drive position in figures or explicitly disclose its drive position in its specification, Schuster does not teach away from the claimed placement; such placement appears to be entirely compatible with Schuster’s disclosed system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Schuster’s drive devices, wherein the drive devices are positioned between the two parallel conveyor-halves, as taught by Schuster, because a symmetric placement of drive devices yields a simpler, less expensive, and more readily maintained design, and because placement in between the two parallel conveyor halves enables a power supply to conveniently power the two drive devices with minimized wiring, yielding a lower manufacturing cost.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindbo in view of Schuster and further in view of Bylsma; Jay M., US 3,902,589 (hereinafter Bylsma).
Lindbo in view of Schuster teaches the limitations of claim 11, but not all aspects of:
wherein each conveyor half comprises a plurality of rollers and the drive device comprises at least one belt linking adjacent rollersWhile both Lindbo and Schuster teach a plurality of rollers they do not teach belts linking adjacent rollers. However, neither teaches away from such belts, and their rollers are structurally compatible with such belts.
Bylsma, an invention in the field of roller conveyor systems, teaches:
wherein each conveyor half comprises a plurality of rollers (14: fig. 1) and the drive device comprises at least one belt (26: fig. 1) linking adjacent rollersBylsma teaches the claimed arrangement of rollers and belts in fig. 1. Each roller is linked by belts to each pair of adjacent rollers on either side.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the roller conveyors of Lindbo and Schuster, wherein each conveyor half comprises a plurality of rollers and the drive device comprises at least one belt linking adjacent rollers, as taught by Bylsma because as Bylsma explains in the abstract, “one or more auxiliary belts” […] “increase the torque applied thereto in addition to the individually applied torque.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Applicant discloses “at least one” conveyor system in claim 1 comprising two conveyor units. Primary reference Lindbo teaches those two conveyor units, but Lindbo does not teach multiple such systems each comprising two conveyors. Claims 9-10 further limit the at least one conveyor system of claim 1 with pluralities of such systems, which were neither found, nor taught, nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record. While the replication of a disclosed structure might perhaps be considered obvious in some circumstances under 35 U.S.C. 103, in the case of primary reference Lindbo there is no discernable room in its storage grid structure for this replication to occur and so Lindbo cannot be used as a teaching basis for the applicant’s plurality of conveyor systems.
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 LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS whose telephone number is (703)756-1828. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0830-1700.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at (571) 270-5565. 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.
/ERNESTO A SUAREZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3655A
/L.R.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 3655