The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/26/25 has been entered.
The amendment filed 6/26/25 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the recitation in claim 32 that “the single motor is coupled to the disc drum through a direct drive worm gear, or … a direct drive pulley gear” is considered new matter. This limitation is seen as being limited to the Figs. 11 and 12 embodiments, which are the only embodiments disclosing a disc drum driven by a motor through a direct drive worm or pulley gear, respectively. However, this claim ultimately depends from claim 30, which recites “a first end of the sling is attached to a first hoist drum of the disc hoist drum and a second end of the sling is attached to a second hoist drum of the disc hoist drum, and the first hoist drum is driven by a first motor and the second hoist drum is driven by a second motor”. These limitations are seen as being limited to the Figs. 5-8 embodiment, which is the only embodiment showing first and second hoist drums driven by respective first and second motors. As such, claim 32 is seen as reciting features which are disclosed as mutually exclusive characteristics of different species in the same claim, and is therefore considered to be new matter.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Figure 4 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Re applicant’s argument that Fig. 4 has been amended to show novel features which are not prior art, it is noted that the specification states on page 17:26 that Fig. 4 shows a “known … system”, i.e., prior art.
Claim 47 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2, “and or” should be --and/or--. Appropriate correction is required.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As noted above in par. 3, claim 32 recites features which are disclosed as mutually exclusive characteristics of different species in the same claim, and is therefore deemed to contain new matter.
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 25 and 27-47 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.
In claim 25, line 6, and claim 30, lines 5 and 6, the recitations “the grid” lack antecedent basis, noting that “a grid … structure”, “a grid pattern”, and “grid spaces” have previously been recited, but not a grid per se.
Claim 28, the recitation “a first motor and a second motor” (emphasis added) is indefinite, as it is unclear whether such motors are the same as the first and second motors previously recited in claim 25 or some other motors.
Claim 31, line 2, the recitation “a disc drum” is indefinite, as it is not clear whether this was intended to refer to the “disc hoist drum” previously recited in claim 30, or a different disc drum.
and line 3, the recitation “in the event” is repeated.
Claim 32, lines 2-3, the recitations “the single motor” lack antecedent basis.
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 25, 27-45 and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindbo (WO 2015/019055) in view of Lilly (US 4,088,232), both previously cited, and Long, Jr. (US 5,074,528).
Re claim 25, Lindbo shows a load handling device 100 for lifting and moving storage containers 106 stacked in a grid framework structure 14 comprising a first set of parallel rails or tracks 22a and a second set of parallel rails or tracks 22b extending substantially perpendicularly to the first set of rails or tracks in a substantially horizontal plane to form a grid pattern having a plurality of grid spaces, wherein the grid framework structure is supported by a set of uprights 16 to form a plurality of vertical storage locations beneath the grid pattern for containers 106 to be stacked between and be guided by the uprights in a vertical direction through the plurality of grid spaces (Figs. 1, 2, 4 and 7), the load handling device comprising:
a body 102 mounted on a first set of wheels 116 being configured to engage with the first set of parallel rails or tracks and a second set of wheels 118 being configured to engage with the second set of parallel rails or tracks; and
a lifting assembly 104 having a sling assembly 108/109/110 configured and arranged to support, raise and lower a load, the sling assembly comprising:
a sling 108 extending between a support 112 mountable to the body of the load handling device and a gripper plate 110 for supporting a load, wherein a first end of the sling is attached to a first hoist drum 109, and the first hoist drum is driven by a first motor 150 (Figs.8-12).
Lindbo does not show that a second end of the sling is attached to a second hoist drum, and the second hoist drum is driven by a second motor. Rather, Lindbo shows four separate slings 108 each attached to a respective hoist drum 109.
However, Lindbo further discloses at page 15:5-6 that each of the lifting cables (slings 108) can be wound/unwound on the spools (hoist drums 109) by either a single motor 150 or with separate motors.
Lilly shows a similar load handling device 14 for lifting and moving storage containers stacked in a grid framework structure 12 having a plurality of grid spaces, wherein the grid structure is supported by a set of uprights to form a plurality of vertical storage locations beneath the grid structure for containers to be stacked between and be guided by the uprights in a vertical direction through the plurality of grid spaces (see Fig. 1);
the load handling device comprising:
a body 60 mounted on a first set of wheels (such as but not limited to 130, 132) and a second set of wheels (such as but not limited to 134, 136); and
a lifting assembly (includes at least 90, 92, 96, 98, 100, 102) having a sling assembly configured and arranged to support, raise and lower a load, the sling assembly comprising:
a sling 92 extending between a support 98 mountable to the body of the load handling device and a gripper plate 110/112 for supporting a load, wherein a first end of the sling is attached to a first hoist drum and a second end of the sling is attached to a second hoist drum (not explicitly shown, but note Figs. 6-7 and col. 3:46-49, which states that the cable (sling) 92 is wound on a motor driven reel enclosed within housing 104.
However, as can best be determined, Lilly does not show separate motors for driving the hoist drums.
Long shows a redundant hoisting assembly on a crane 2 (load handling device), wherein each of a plurality of ropes 44-51 (slings) extends between a support 4 mountable to a body 14 of the crane and a gripper plate 38 for gripping a load 32, wherein a first end of each sling is attached to a first hoist drum 34 and a second end of each sling is attached to a second hoist drum 36 (col. 3:11-23), and the first hoist drum is driven by a first motor 52 and the second hoist drum is driven by a second motor 54 independently of each other (col. 3:40-44). The advantage of this arrangement is so that if one motor and/or drum fails, the other motor and drum can still drive the sling(s) to raise and lower the load (col. 4:26-45).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Lindbo such that the second end of the sling was attached to a second hoist drum driven by a second motor, as collectively suggested by Lindbo (providing multiple motors), Lilly (using a sling with ends connected to first and second hoist drums in the same environment and for the same purpose as Lindbo), and Long (separate and independently controlled motors for separate hoist drums), as this would allow the sling assembly to raise and lower a load even in the event of a failure of one of the motors or drums.
Re claim 27, when modified as above, the first hoist drum and the second hoist drum would be connected to the lifting assembly such that each of the first and second hoist drums was configured to independently drive the sling in the event one of the first hoist drum and the second hoist drum fails.
Re claim 28 (as best understood), Lindbo discloses at least first and second motors (e.g., any two of 150, 152, 154) independently powered by “respective power supplies”, as broadly recited (e.g., separate batteries disclosed on page 14:31-38). Note that claim 28 does not require the first and/or second motors to necessarily be the same first and second motors of claim 25, and even if it did, such a feature is disclosed by Long, as noted above.
Re claim 29, Lindbo as modified above includes at least two sling assemblies.
Re claim 30, Lindo shows a load handling device 100 for lifting and moving storage containers 106 stacked in a grid framework structure 14 having a first set of parallel rails or tracks 22a and a second set of parallel rails or tracks 22b extending substantially perpendicularly to the first set of rails or tracks in a substantially horizontal plane to form a grid pattern having a plurality of grid spaces, wherein the grid framework structure is supported by a set of uprights 16 to form a plurality of vertical storage locations beneath the grid pattern for containers to be stacked between and be guided by the uprights in a vertical direction through the plurality of grid spaces (Figs. 1, 2,4 and 7);
the load handling device comprising:
a body mounted 102 on a first set of wheels 116 being configured to engage with the first set of parallel rails or tracks and a second set of wheels 118 being configured to engage with the second set of parallel rails or tracks; and
a lifting assembly 104 comprising:
a disc hoist drum 109 mounted on a support 112 mountable to the body of the load handling device and for spooling one or more tapes 108; and
a gripper plate 110 for supporting a load, wherein the one or more tapes extend between the disc hoist drum and the gripper plate; and
a sling 92 extending between the support mountable to the body of the load handling device and the gripper plate for supporting a load, wherein a first end of the sling is attached to a first hoist drum 109 of the disc hoist drum, and the first hoist drum is driven by a first motor 150.
Lindbo does not show a second end of the sling attached to a second hoist drum of the disc hoist drum, and the second hoist drum is driven by a second motor.
However, in the same manner set forth above with respect to claim 25, Lindbo, Lilly and Long collectively suggest such features, and thus it would have been obvious to have modified the device of Lindbo with such features for the same reasons stated above.
Re claim 31 (as best understood in light of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth above), Lindbo as modified above shows that the disc hoist drum is configured to be driven by one of the first motor or the second motor in the event [in the event] one of the first motor and the second motor fails.
Re claim 32 (as best understood and to whatever extent the limitation may be given patentable weight in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) set forth above), Lindbo does not show that a single motor is coupled to the disc drum through a direct drive worm or pulley gear. However, Lindbo discloses an alternative embodiment of wheels in Fig. 17 that are directly driven by an integrated motor instead of utilizing a drive belt arrangement. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a similar idea could be applied to the drive mechanism of the lifting assembly, such that the motor for driving the disc drum was directly connected thereto via a worm or pulley gear instead of the drive belt arrangement of Figs. 8-12. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Lindbo by utilizing a worm or pully gear directly connected between the motor and the disc drum, to eliminate the drive belt(s).
Re claims 33 and 34, Lilly shows that the sling is “arranged in a pulley system”, as broadly recited (note pulleys 100, 102), and that the lifting assembly comprises at least one guide or guide-roller mounted on the gripper plate (not explicitly identified but can be seen in at least Fig. 7). Long also shows a similar pulley system with guides or guide rollers. The apparatus of Lindbo when modified in the manner above would obviously include such features.
Re claim 35, Lindbo as modified does not show the at least one guide or guide-roller to be configured as powered assistant guide-rollers. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have additionally modified the apparatus of Lindbo by configuring the at least one guide or guide-roller as a “powered assistant guide-roller”, as broadly recited, as the examiner takes Official Notice that powering a guide roller for a lifting cable is well known and would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Re claim 36, the at least one guide or guide-roller of Lilly is considered to inherently include “one or more movable tensioning guide-rollers”, as broadly recited (i.e., it clearly moves/rotates and provides at least some degree of tension to the sling). The apparatus of Lindbo when modified in the manner above would obviously include this feature. Long also teaches tensioned guide rollers.
Re claim 37, the lifting assemblies of at least Lindbo and Lilly are both clearly “under control of the load handling device”, as broadly recited.
Re claim 38, Lindbo discloses sensors generally (page 11:34, page 12:17), but does not specifically disclose that the gripper plate has at least one sensor for detecting at least one of balance of the gripper plate and a load attached to the gripper plate. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have also modified Lindbo such that the gripper plate included at least one sensor for detecting at least one of balance of the gripper plate and a load attached thereto, as the examiner takes Official Notice that the use of sensors on a suspended lifting device to ensure a level and balanced lifting/lowering thereof is well known and would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Re claim 39, the gripper plate of Lindbo comprises at least one gripper assembly (see Fig. 11, page 7:20 to page 8:2, and page 11:9-11). Lilly also discloses that the gripper plate comprises at least one gripper assembly 114, 116, as does Long (40-43).
Re claim 40, the at least one gripper assembly of Lindbo is arranged to correspond positionally to latch recesses on a storage container (Fig. 11; page 7:33 to page 8:2).
Re claim 41, the gripper plate of Lilly comprises a gripper assembly that includes guides and/or guide rollers 100, 102 mounted on the load handling device for guiding the tapes. The apparatus of Lindbo when modified in the manner above would obviously include such a feature. Long also teaches similar structure (Figs. 2, 4).
Re claim 42, when modified in the manner set forth above with respect to claim 25, the grid-based storage and retrieval system of Lindbo would comprise:
a grid framework structure 14 comprising a first set of parallel rails or tracks 22a and a second set of parallel rails or tracks 22b extending substantially perpendicularly to the first set of rails or tracks in a substantially horizontal plane to form a grid pattern having a plurality of grid spaces, wherein the grid framework structure is supported by a set of uprights 16 to form a plurality of vertical storage locations beneath the grid pattern for containers 106 to be stacked between and be guided by the uprights in a vertical direction through the plurality of grid spaces (Figs. 1, 2, 4 and 7);
at least one load handling device 100 according to claim 25 configured and arranged to operate on the grid framework structure; and
a centralised control utility (page 5:5-7) for controlling the at least one load handling device.
Re claim 43, Lindbo discloses that the at least one load handing device comprises first communication means (page 11:31-34), and the centralised control utility of the storage system comprises second communication means (page 5:5-7), which is considered to inherently be used for communicating with the first communication means on the at least one load handling device.
Re claim 44, the centralised control utility is considered to inherently be configured for instructing the load handling device to lift a container from a stack beneath the grid pattern and move the container to another location on the grid framework structure, and/or instructing the load handling device to lower a container into a stack storage position beneath the grid framework structure, inasmuch as the load handling device is an automated robotic vehicle with on-board controllers and communication devices, as noted above.
Re claim 45, Lindbo discloses that one or more wheels of the load handling device cannot be driven during lifting operations to lift a container from a storage location beneath the grid pattern (e.g., implicit from page 12:32 to page 13:3).
Re claim 48, the load handling device of Lindbo, when modified as set forth above with respect to claims 25 and/or 30, would obviously perform a method of operating a load handling device for lifting and moving storage containers stacked in a grid framework, the method comprising:
receiving a signal from a centralised control facility (page 5:5-7) to perform a lifting operation, by the load handling device, and maneuvering the load handling device to a lift location (inherent from page 5:5-7, page 8:21 and page 11:31-34);
lowering a gripper plate 110 to insert grippers into cooperating recesses of a container to be lifted by the load handling device and causing the grippers to latch to the container (Figs. 5 and 11 and above-noted passages in reference to claims 39-40); and
lifting the gripper plate into a cavity of the load handling device, using a sling that extended between a support mountable to a body of the load handling device and the gripper plate, wherein a first end of the sling was attached to a first hoist drum of a disc hoist drum and a second end of the sling was attached to a second hoist drum of the disc hoist drum, the method including driving the first hoist drum by a first motor and driving the second hoist drum by a second motor;
wherein the method further comprised one of:
lifting the gripper plate and container into a cavity of the load handling device (Figs. 6, 8, 9, 12); or
lowering the gripper plate and container until the container was supported at a stack position within the grid framework and causing the grippers to release the container.
Claims 46-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindbo in view of Lilly and Long, Jr., as applied to claim 42 above, and further in view of Stadie et al (US 10,882,540, previously cited).
Lindbo as modified does not show that the centralised control utility is configured to remotely monitor a condition of the at least one load handling device, such that if a malfunction [and or] and/or failure of the load handling device is detected by the centralised control utility, the load handling device will be instructed to move to a maintenance area or edge of the grid framework structure by means of a load handling device that has not malfunctioned or failed.
Stadie shows a similar storage and retrieval system (Figs. 1-4) wherein a robotic service device 50, which is controlled by a central control utility, can remotely monitor a condition of at least one load handling device 30 operating on a grid 22 such that if a malfunction and or failure of the load handling device is detected by the central control utility, the load handling device will be instructed to move to a maintenance area or edge of the grid by means of a load handling device that has not malfunctioned or failed (i.e., by being moved by the service device 50; col. 3:41-44, col. 4:6-13 and 45-56, col. 5:8-14 and 52-64).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the apparatus of Lindbo by configuring the centralised control utility to remotely monitor a condition of the at least one load handling device, such that, if a malfunction and/or failure of the load handling device was detected by the centralised control utility, the load handling device would be instructed to move to a maintenance area or edge of the grid by means of a load handling device that had not malfunctioned or failed, as taught by Stadie, to effectively enable removal of a malfunctioning or failed load handling device from the grid in a timely manner and avoid obstructing the operation of other load handling devices.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 25 (which are considered to apply to claims 30 and 48 as well) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. De Seroux and Fischer show redundant motor/drum assemblies for a cable hoist generally similar to that of Long.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Keenan whose telephone number is (571)272-6925. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Saul Rodriguez can be reached on 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.
/James Keenan/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3652
9/17/25