DETAILED ACTION
The Preliminary Amendment has been entered.
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “support means for supporting a storage container” recited in claims 14 and 15; the “charging bay, “passing lane”, “siding”; “lay-by” and “passing point” recited in claims 16 and 27; the “partitioning means” having “openings” or hatches” recited in claims 17 and 28; the “fire break means” recited in claims 18 and 29; the “two or more vertically arranged floors”, the “one or more lifts” and the “sky-lobby floor” recited in claims 19 and 30; the “maintenance area” recited in claim 21; the “mezzanine level” recited in claim 22; the “one or more workstations”, the “RFID reader”, the “scanner”, the “camera”, the “identity tag”, and the “label” of claim 23 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contain legal the phraseology “support means for supporting”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 15 and 27-30 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. Claim 15 recites “support means for supporting a storage container”. Is this the same “support means for supporting a storage container” recited in claim 14 from which claim 15 depends?
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 14-16, 19, 20, 23-27, and 30-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lisso (US 2020/0231384). Lisso discloses a storage system comprising: at least one storage floor (level 1-level 6) including a track network, based on a grid system, the track network including a first set of track members (see Fig. 2) extending in a first direction, and a second set of track members (see Fig. 2) extending in a second direction, the second set of track members running transversely to the first set of track members in a substantially horizontal plane, wherein the track network includes access aisles (270) and storage aisles (see Fig. 2, at “b”, “d”, “f”, and “g”), wherein the storage aisles include one or more storage locations/temporary storage locations (“storage cell”) for receiving and storing storage containers (240); at least one load handling device (250) configured for operating on the track network for lifting and transporting storage containers; and wherein a storage location includes a support means (see Fig. 2, vertical rails..at “310”) for supporting a storage container. Lisso further discloses a passing lane (280); two or more vertically arranged floors (level 1-level 6), wherein floors are interconnected by one or more lifts accessible from access aisles (see paras. 0036-0037), for transferring load handling devices between floors; and wherein floors include: at least one storage floor. Lisso further discloses a control facility (180); one or more work-stations (see para. 0023), wherein each workstation includes an RFID reader (see para. 0023); wherein the control facility comprises a communications module (see para. 0023); the control facility is configured to confirm a correct storage container is being handled at each stage (see para. 0027)
Claim(s) 14-15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Austrheim (US 12,139,336). Austrheim discloses a storage system comprising: at least one storage floor (see Fig. 14) including a track network, based on a grid system, the track network including a first set of track members (see Fig. 10) extending in a first direction, and a second set of track members (see Fig. 10) extending in a second direction, the second set of track members running transversely to the first set of track members in a substantially horizontal plane, wherein the track network includes access aisles (see Fig. 6, generally at 31 and 33, and Fig. 14, generally at 4) and storage aisles (see Fig. 6, generally at 4), wherein the storage aisles include one or more storage locations/temporary storage locations (see Fig. 10) for receiving and storing storage containers (“storage containers”); at least one load handling device (101) configured for operating on the track network for lifting and transporting storage containers; and wherein a storage location includes a support means (102) for supporting a storage container. Austrheim further discloses two or more vertically arranged floors, wherein floors are interconnected by one or more lifts (4) accessible from access aisles for transferring load handling devices between floors; and wherein floors include: at least one storage floor (see Fig. 14).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 17, 18, 28, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Austrheim (US 12,139,336) in view of Fjeldheim et al. (US 2022/0306383). Austrheim discloses a storage system comprising: at least one storage floor (see Fig. 14) including a track network, based on a grid system, the track network including a first set of track members (see Fig. 10) extending in a first direction, and a second set of track members (see Fig. 10) extending in a second direction, the second set of track members running transversely to the first set of track members in a substantially horizontal plane, wherein the track network includes access aisles (see Fig. 6, generally at 31 and 33, and Fig. 14, generally at 4) and storage aisles (see Fig. 6, generally at 4), wherein the storage aisles include one or more storage locations/temporary storage locations (see Fig. 10) for receiving and storing storage containers (“storage containers”); at least one load handling device (101) configured for operating on the track network for lifting and transporting storage containers; and wherein a storage location includes a support means (102) for supporting a storage container. Austrheim discloses all the limitations of the claims, but it does not disclose partitioning means, comprising fire break means, wherein a floor of the storage system is divided by the partitioning means into chambers, and the partitioning means has openings or hatches through which load handling devices may pass. However, Fjeldheim discloses a similar storage system which includes partitioning means (6, 8), comprising fire break means (see paras. 0144-0145), wherein a floor of the storage system is divided by the partitioning means into chambers, and the partitioning means has openings (6a, 8a) or hatches through which load handling devices may pass for the purpose of containing fires. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to include partitioning means, comprising fire break means, wherein a floor of the storage system is divided by the partitioning means into chambers, and the partitioning means has openings or hatches through which load handling devices may pass, as disclosed by Fjeldheim, for the purpose of containing fires.
Claim(s) 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Austrheim (US 12,139,336) in view of Gjerdevik et al. (US 12,365,543). Austrheim discloses a storage system comprising: at least one storage floor (see Fig. 14) including a track network, based on a grid system, the track network including a first set of track members (see Fig. 10) extending in a first direction, and a second set of track members (see Fig. 10) extending in a second direction, the second set of track members running transversely to the first set of track members in a substantially horizontal plane, wherein the track network includes access aisles (see Fig. 6, generally at 31 and 33, and Fig. 14, generally at 4) and storage aisles (see Fig. 6, generally at 4), wherein the storage aisles include one or more storage locations/temporary storage locations (see Fig. 10) for receiving and storing storage containers (“storage containers”); at least one load handling device (101) configured for operating on the track network for lifting and transporting storage containers; and wherein a storage location includes a support means (102) for supporting a storage container. Austrheim further discloses two or more vertically arranged floors, wherein floors are interconnected by one or more lifts (4) accessible from access aisles for transferring load handling devices between floors; and wherein floors include: at least one storage floor (see Fig. 14). Austrheim discloses all the limitations of the claims, but it does not disclose that each floor includes a maintenance area comprising a mezzanine level above at least a portion of the storage locations. However, Gjerdevik et al. discloses a similar storage system including includes a maintenance area (see col. 9, lines 65-67) comprising a mezzanine level (410) above at least a portion of the storage locations for the purpose of conducting repair on load handling devices. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to have each floor include a maintenance area comprising a mezzanine level above at least a portion of the storage locations, as disclosed by Gjerdevik, for the purpose of conducting repair on load handling devices.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Benedict et al. (US 8,628,289) and Kalouche (US 11,724,880) disclose storage systems including access aisles and lifts.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK HEWEY MACKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6916. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 9-5.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached at 571-272-7805. 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.
/PATRICK H MACKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653