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 .
Final Rejection
Applicant's arguments filed 8/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for reasons detailed below.
The prior art rejections are maintained or modified as follows:
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 of this title, 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 1-3, 5-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clarke et al. (“Clarke”)(US 2018/0044111 A1) in view of Corcoran (US 6,077,019).
Clarke (fig. 1-11) teaches an automated storage and retrieval system and method comprising:
(re: certain elements of claim 1) a rail system arranged above the roof, upon which rail system may travel one or more wheeled container handling vehicles (fig. 4 and para. 35-41, 45 teaching rail system near 22 for container vehicles 30),
the container handling vehicles comprising a lifting device for lifting and lowering containers (fig. 3b, 3c showing lifting device),
a storage tower comprising:
a plurality of vertically stacked container supports, the container supports having a lateral width corresponding to a plurality of container spaces and a longitudinal length corresponding to a plurality of container spaces, thereby defining a plurality of lateral rows of container spaces (fig. 5a), and
an automated control system, whereby the container handling vehicle may lower the lifting device though the hatch, down the tower port, and access the target container (para. 12, 13, 17, 37, 40, 43 teaching automated control means for services and conditions related to containers/bins, such as temperature, moisture and lighting as well as picking/lift elements for accessing products at multiple grid locations, wherein container contents can be groceries);
(re: claim 2) wherein the rail system arranged above the roof of the isolating housing is operatively connected to a standard portion of an automated grid storage system, of the type comprising a framework structure comprising upright members, horizontal members and a storage volume comprising storage columns arranged in rows between the upright members and the horizontal members, and further comprising
a rail system arranged across the top of framework structure, on which rail system a plurality of container handling vehicles are operated to raise storage containers from, and lower storage containers into, the storage columns, and also to transport the storage containers above the storage columns,
the rail system comprising a first set of parallel rails arranged to guide movement of the container handling vehicles in a first direction across the top of the frame structure, and
a second set of parallel rails arranged perpendicular to the first set of rails to guide movement of the container handling vehicles in a second direction Y which is perpendicular to the first direction (fig. 4; para. 33-37);
(re: certain elements of claim 3) wherein the storage tower comprises:
a plurality of horizontally extending container supporting frameworks distributed with vertical offsets, wherein the plurality of horizontal container supporting frameworks comprises:
a first container supporting framework and
at least one second container supporting framework arranged beneath and extending parallel to the first container supporting framework,
wherein each of the first and the at least one second container supporting frameworks comprises:
a horizontally extending container support with principal directions in a first direction and an orthogonal second direction, each container support being configured as a matrix of container spaces with a plurality of columns of container spaces arranged in the first direction and a plurality of rows of container spaces arranged in the second direction (cf. fig. 1, 4, 5a);
(re: claim 6) wherein the container supports comprises vertical guide plates arranged at least partly around the perimeter of each of the at least one opening, the vertical guide plates of vertically adjacent opening arranged to cooperate to form the tower port (cf. fig. 4 and 5a showing structural supports around each opening);
(re: claim 7) wherein the isolating housing, is a thermally isolating housing, and wherein refrigeration equipment is arranged in connection with the housing (para. 17).
(re: claims 9 and 10) The claimed method steps are performed in the normal operation of the combined device described below.
Clarke as set forth above teaches all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: certain elements of claim 1) an isolating housing, comprising walls and a roof, and arranged to isolate goods stored within the isolating housing from an outside environment, the goods being stored in storage containers,
said storage tower arranged inside the isolating housing being accessible to the container handling vehicle or vehicles though a hatch, wherein one or more openable and closable housing openings or hatches are arranged in the roof of the isolating housing,
the rail system at least arranged such that a container handling vehicle may be positioned with a lifting device positioned above the hatch,
means for horizontally moving container supports in order to align the opening of vertically adjacent container supports to form a tower port beneath a hatch,
means for horizontally moving a target container support in order to position a target container at the bottom of the tower port,
the container supports being in the form of horizontally movable shelves upon which may rest a plurality of storage containers;
(re: certain elements of claim 3) wherein one or more of the container spaces of a lateral row is an opening corresponding in size to a storage container such that storage containers may pass therethrough;
wherein each row of container spaces of the first container supporting framework:
is configured to receive a plurality of storage containers and displays at least one opening extending along the second direction,
the at least one opening having an opening size being at least a maximum horizontal cross section of the storage containers to be stored,
wherein the at least one opening of the first container supporting framework and the at least one opening of the at least one second container supporting framework can be aligned vertically with respect to each other,
wherein at least one container support is displaceable along the second direction, wherein at least one container supporting framework further comprises a support displacement device configured to displace the displaceable container support;
(re: claim 5) wherein the support displacement device comprises a motor for driving a linear actuator, gearwheel drive, chain drive, belt drive or any combination thereof, the motor being arranged outside a horizontal extent of the respective container supporting framework containing at least one displaceable container support to be displaced, or wherein the displacement device is a direct drive mechanism arranged on the container support.
Corcoran, however, teaches that it is well-known in the storage arts to configure said storage tower within an isolated housing with access hatches (fig. 2, 3 showing housing with hatches near 80; col. 5, ln. 60+ teaching that housing and hatches allow for greater structural integrity during transport/use) and to integrate means for horizontally moving the container supports for easier retrieval of targeted containers (fig. 2, 5 and col. 4, ln. 42-col. 5, ln. 60 teaching that storage tower includes laterally movable container supports comprising a frame 75 with wheels 70 for said containers that are separately driveable/displaceable with conventional motor assembly mounted thereon that allows for the efficient removal of targeted containers without removing containers stacked thereupon by shifting said blocked stacked containers through the respective framework openings).
It would thus be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the base reference with these prior art teachings—with a reasonable expectation of success—to arrive at the claimed invention. The rationale for this obviousness determination can be found in the prior art itself as cited above and from an analysis of the prior art teachings that demonstrates that the modification to arrive at the claimed invention would merely involve the substitution/addition of well-known elements (e.g., moveable container supports) with no change in their respective functions. Moreover, the use of prior art elements according to their known functions is a predictable variation that would yield predictable results (e.g., benefit produced by known function), and thus cannot be regarded as a non-obvious modification when the modification is already commonly implemented in the relevant prior art. See also MPEP 2143.I (teaching that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is known to one with ordinary skill in the art); 2144.06, 2144.07 (teaching as obvious the use of art recognized equivalences. Further, the prior art discussed and cited demonstrates the level of sophistication of one with ordinary skill in the art and that these modifications are predictable variations that would be within this skill level. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Clarke for the reasons set forth above.
Claims 4, 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clarke and Corcoran (“Clarke et al.”) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Whelan et al. (“Whelan”)(US 2022/0135324) and Bianco et al (“Bianco”)(US 2023/0034342).
Clarke et al. as set forth above teach all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: claim 4) wherein the storage tower comprises a hatch barrier arranged above the container supporting framework, the barrier being configured to cover and isolate the housing opening and wherein the barrier is displaceable horizontally displaceable along the first direction or the second direction by a support displacement device;
(re: claims 8, 11) wherein the isolating housing, is a fire or blast resistant housing adapted for storing flammable or explosive materials.
Here, it is noted that Corcoran already teaches a hatch barrier (80) and is merely silent on how said barrier is connected and the type of material used in the isolating housing (col. 6, ln. 60+ teaching that hatches allow for greater structural integrity).
Bianco teaches that it is well-known in the automated warehouse arts to make a cover slidable to allow selective access (Cf. fig. 5-6; Abstract).
Whelan further teaches that it is well-known in the automated storage arts to use resistant materials in different areas of the structure to protect against fire (para. 91, 105-120, 138).
It would thus be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of references with these prior art teachings—with a reasonable expectation of success—to arrive at the claimed invention as these modifications are already well-known and commonly implemented in the storage and retrieval arts. Indeed, the modification to arrive at the claimed invention would merely involve the substitution/addition of well-known elements (e.g., sliding covers) with no change in their respective functions. Moreover, the use of prior art elements according to their known functions is a predictable variation that would yield predictable results (e.g., benefit produced by known function), and thus cannot be regarded as a non-obvious modification when the modification is already commonly implemented in the relevant prior art. See also MPEP 2143.I (teaching that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is known to one with ordinary skill in the art); 2144.06, 2144.07 (teaching as obvious the use of art recognized equivalences. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Clarke et al. for the reasons set forth above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments that the prior art fails to teach the claim features are unpersuasive. Applicant argues that Clarke fails to show stacked container supports being in the form of horizontally movables shelves and that the combination also does not teach this feature. Examiner disagrees and notes that this feature is taught by the secondary reference as cited above. Indeed, Corcoran expressly teaches a frame with wheels that is horizontally movable as shown in figure 5 below and teaches the essence of Applicant’s invention—means for horizontally moving container supports to allow a container handling vehicle to lower a lifting device and access a target container-- thus undermining Applicant’s arguments.
PNG
media_image1.png
681
1007
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Consequently, as a reasonable interpretation of the prior art undermines Applicant’s arguments, the claims stand rejected.
Examiner has maintained the prior art rejections, statutory rejections and drawing objections as previously stated and as modified above. Applicant's amendment necessitated any new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Conclusion
Any references not explicitly discussed but made of record during the prosecution of the instant application are considered helpful in understanding and establishing the state of the prior art and are thus relevant to the prosecution of the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is 571-272-3692 (M-F, 9 am – 6 pm, PST). The Supervisory Examiner is MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH, 571-272-7805.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, send an E-mail communication to Joseph.Rodriguez@uspto.gov. Such E-mail communication should be in accordance with provisions of the MPEP (see e.g., 502.03 & 713.04; see also Patent Internet Usage Policy Article 5). E-mail communication must begin with a statement authorizing the E-mail communication and acknowledging that such communication is not secure and may be made of record. Please note that any communications with regards to the merits of an application will be made of record. A suggested format for such authorization is as follows: "Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file”.
Information regarding the status of an application may also be obtained from the Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
/JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Jcr
------
October 1, 2025