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 .
In view of Applicant’s arguments (presented 6/30/2026), the portions of the rejections based on the Thorp reference have been withdrawn. The prior art rejections are maintained or modified as follows:
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 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; or
(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, 3-4 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lindbo et al. (“Lindbo”)(US 2018/0170650).
Lindbo (fig. 4, 5, 12) teaches an automated storage and retrieval system for storing product items comprising
(re: claims 1, 14) a framework structure with upright members and horizontal members and a storage volume comprising storage columns between the members, wherein the framework structure comprises a rail system arranged above the members for movement of container handling vehicles therein (fig. 4 showing framework structure with storage columns 12 of stacked containers 10 and upper rail/track system near 22 configured for vehicles near 30; para. 9, 45-49);
storage containers in which the product items are stored, wherein the storage containers are stackable in stacks within the storage columns (Id.);
container handling vehicles moving along the rail system for transporting the storage containers (Id.),
wherein the rail system comprises rails, each rail comprising tracks (Id. with para. 48 teaching that load handling vehicle 30 consists of wheel sets that engage tracks);
wherein adjacent tracks of at least one rail of the rail system are separated by a ventilation slot extending in a vertical plane between two adjacent storage columns (fig. 12 near 24 and para. 79 teaching alternate embodiment wherein one or more vertical rows can be omitted to allow better air flow through the container stacks and that “width of empty rows can vary from 0.5 to 2 m wide”); and
a ventilated storage container in one of the storage columns, in which one or more ventilation openings of the ventilated storage container face towards the ventilation slot (fig. 5a, 5b; para. 54-55 teaching that container can vary in shape and size and that ventilation openings may be provided in 2, 3, 4, 5 or all 6 sides thus one of said sides with said opening can be regarded as facing towards the ventilation slot);
(re: claim 3) wherein the ventilated storage container comprises the one or more ventilation openings in at least a side wall facing towards the ventilation slot when located in a storage column adjacent to the ventilation slot (Id.);
(re: claim 4) wherein the ventilated storage containers comprise the one or more ventilation openings in one side wall only, the one side wall having ventilation openings being faced towards the ventilation slot when located in a storage column adjacent to the ventilation slot (Id. teaching placement of ventilation openings in any container side);
(re: claim 11) wherein at least one of the container handling vehicles comprises a lifting device with a gripping unit, the lifting device with gripping unit being rotatably connected with respect to
(re: claim 12) wherein a first track of the adjacent tracks are used by a vehicle moving above one of the adjacent columns and wherein a second track of the adjacent tracks are used by a vehicle moving above the second one of the adjacent columns (Id.);
(re: claim 13) wherein the rails in the first horizontal direction is forming a bridge over the ventilation slot at intervals in a second direction allowing the vehicles to pass the ventilation gap (fig. 12 showing that vehicle tracks form bridge over ventilation gaps/spaces).
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, 3-7 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindbo et al. (“Lindbo”)(US 2018/0170650) in view of legal precedent.
Lindbo as set forth above teaches all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: claim 5) wherein the ventilation slot has a width in a first horizontal direction of 1-30% of the width in the first horizontal direction of the adjacent storage column;
(re: claim 6) wherein the framework structure comprises one ventilation slot for every second storage column;
(re: claim 7) wherein: a first area of the framework structure comprises one ventilation slot for every second storage column; a second area of the framework structure is provided without ventilation slots between adjacent tracks; and
the container handing vehicles are movable along the rail system between first and second areas.
Further, under an alternative interpretation, the ventilation slot being narrower than the adjacent storage columns (re: claim 1) may be regarded as not taught above.
Here, it is noted that Lindbo already teaches that it is well-known in the automated storage arts to vary the width of the ventilation slot and to place openings in any side of a storage container (supra teaching that width of ventilation slot may be varied) and, moreover, that various ventilation elements can be placed throughout an automated storage system to allow one to accurately maintain and vary temperature within a stacked storage system (cf. fig. 14-17 and para. 23).
Moreover, the claimed features relating to the specific configuration of known elements, such as the ventilation slot (width or location) or the storage containers (location of openings therein) as common design parameters/operating variables. This is especially applicable in the automated storage arts as the type of items to be handled controls variations in the specific device dimensions, features and/or automated material handling steps as taught above. Moreover, legal precedent teaches that variations in these type of common design parameters/operating variables are obvious and are the mere optimization of result-effective variables that would be known to one with ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 I.II (teaching ample motivation to optimize or modify result-effective variables based on “design need(s)” or “market demand”); see also MPEP 2144.04.IV (teaching that changes in size, proportion or shape of known elements are obvious); 2144.04.V.D. and VI (teaching that the mere rearrangement or duplication of known elements, or making known elements adjustable, is not a patentable advance).
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, in legal precedent as described 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 (i.e., ventilation slots) 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 Lindbo for the reasons set forth above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-22 are allowed.
Claims 8-10 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.
Conclusion
Any references not explicitly discussed above but made of record are regarded as helpful in establishing the state of the prior art and are thus considered 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
---
August 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights