DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 5-6, 8-9, 13, and 15-18 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 5 includes “the shuttle includes a running rail that can be reversibly moved from a first to a second position.” This is unclear as based on the disclosure the movable rail is part of the transfer unit rather than the shuttle. Furthermore, it is unclear how “the running rail in the second position allows the shuttle to enter the transfer unit” if the rail is part of the shuttle itself. Clarification is necessary.
Claim 8 includes “a first parking and receiving area” and “a second parking and receiving area” but it is unclear how these two relate to the “at least one parking and receiving area” introduced in claim 1. Are these in addition to this at least one area, or further defining the previously introduced parking area. Clarification is necessary.
Claim 13 includes that the light barrier is able to distinguish between a person and a vehicle approaching the transfer station. It is not clear how this occurs or how a light curtain is capable of this distinction.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the opposing second entrance or first entrance" in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-12, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE3219459 to Murata.
Regarding claim 1 Murata discloses a transfer unit (see figures 8-9) for the transfer of a load carrier from a first vehicle to a second vehicle and vice versa, or from a first vehicle to a conveyor and vice versa (see figures 8-9 and T, 38, 35), the transfer unit comprising: a first entrance that permits entry of said first vehicle (end where T is located), at least one parking and receiving area for said load carrier (area occupied load during transfer), at which said first vehicle can park and receive said load carrier; and at least one centering device (44) that is configured to center said load carrier (para 0029); wherein the transfer unit, relative to the first entrance, includes either a second entrance that allows the entry of said second vehicle, or is connected to said conveyor (see figures 7-9 and either conveyor 35 or vehicle 38); and wherein the least one centering device is arranged so that centering takes place in the transfer unit when said load carrier is transferred from said second vehicle to said first vehicle or from said conveyor to said first vehicle (para 0029).
Regarding claim 2 Murata discloses the at least one centering device is able to run along a direction in which at least one of said first or second vehicles enters or exits the transfer unit, or along which said conveyor transports said load carrier into or out of the transfer unit (see figure 8, conveyor in line with centering device).
Regarding claim 3 Murata discloses the centering device runs orthogonal to a direction in which at least one of said vehicles enters or exits the transfer unit, or along which said conveyor transports said load carrier into or out of the transfer unit (see figure 7, T enters from a direction orthogonal to centering device).
Regarding claim 4 Murata discloses the transfer of said load carrier is from said second vehicle comprising an industrial truck to said first vehicle comprising a shuttle and vice versa, and the first entrance allows the entry of the shuttle; wherein the transfer unit includes a second entrance that allows the entry of said industrial truck; wherein the shuttle and said industrial truck can park and receive said load carrier on the parking and receiving area; and wherein the at least one centering device is arranged in the transfer unit so that centering can take place when said load carrier is transferred from said industrial truck to the shuttle (see e.g., figure 7, either of 38 or T can be a shuttle or an industrial truck). Additionally, it is noted that neither the shuttle or the industrial truck is required by the claim, merely entrances and parking area such that such vehicles can transfer items to/from the transfer unit.
Regarding claim 8 Murata discloses the transfer unit includes a first parking and receiving area for said load carrier, at which a shuttle can park and receive said load carrier; a second parking and receiving area for said load carrier, where an industrial truck can park and receive said load carrier; and a conveyor (35) configured to move said load carrier between the first parking and receiving area and the second parking and receiving area. (see figures 7-9 and vehicles 38 and T).
Regarding claim 9 Murata discloses the conveyor comprises a chain conveyor, a telescopic fork, or a roller race.
Regarding claim 10 Murata discloses a rack equipped with a transfer unit according to claim 1 (see figure 7), wherein the transfer unit is configured as a point of intersection between the rack and an area upstream of the rack (see figures 7-9).
Regarding claim 11 Murata discloses the area upstream of the rack comprises a pre-storage zone (see figure 7, articles flow into the rack via the transfer station).
Regarding claim 12 Murata discloses a shuttle system including a transfer unit according to claim 1 (see above), a rack (see 32 and figure 7), and a first vehicle (38 or T), wherein the transfer unit is configured as a point of intersection between the rack and an area upstream of the rack (see figure 7).
Regarding claim 14 Murata discloses a method for transferring a load carrier with a transfer unit according to claim 1, the method comprising: a conveyor or a first vehicle placing a load carrier on a parking and receiving area of the transfer unit (transfer from 38 to 35 or 35 to roller conveyor); centering the load carrier (contact of load with 44, para 0029); and the conveyor or first vehicle picking up the load carrier from the parking and receiving area of the transfer unit (transfer of load to T).
Regarding claim 15 Murata discloses a shuttle or industrial truck comprising said first vehicle or said second vehicle, and carrying a load carrier entering the transfer unit through the first or second entrance (transfer from 38 to 35); the shuttle or industrial truck lowering the load carrier that is centered by sliding along the at least one centering device (see figure 9 and para 0028); the shuttle or industrial truck leaving the transfer unit through the first entrance or the second entrance (38 going back into the rack); and the industrial truck or shuttle (T) entering the transfer unit through the opposing second entrance or first entrance (see figures 8-9), and the industrial truck or shuttle picking up the load carrier previously left there (transfer of load to T).
Regarding claim 16 Murata discloses placing a load carrier on the transfer conveyor of the transfer unit by a shuttle or a conveyor; centering the load carrier; the conveyor or shuttle picking up the load carrier from the transfer conveyor of the transfer unit (see figures 8-9 and transfer, via transfer unit, of load from 38 to T via 35 and 44).
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.
Claim(s) 7 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata in view of DE102008022323 to SSI Schafer.
Regarding the claims Murata discloses all the limitations of the claims except a sensor, which is set up to detect a presence of a shuttle and/or a presence of an industrial truck in the transfer unit and said first vehicle or said second vehicle comprises at least one industrial truck; and a light barrier; wherein the light barrier is configured to detect an industrial truck approaching the transfer unit and a person approaching the transfer unit, and the light barrier is also able to distinguish between the two.
SSI Schafer teaches a system including a sensor (42), which is set up to detect a presence of a shuttle and/or a presence of an industrial truck in the transfer unit (see para 0053) and said first vehicle or said second vehicle comprises at least one industrial truck; and a light barrier (42); wherein the light barrier is configured to detect an industrial truck approaching the transfer unit and a person approaching the transfer unit, and the light barrier is also able to distinguish between the two (paras 0053-56) in order to monitor the area and execute an emergency stop if a person is detected (para 0056).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of Applicants’ claims to have modified Murata to include a sensor, which is set up to detect a presence of a shuttle and/or a presence of an industrial truck in the transfer unit and said first vehicle or said second vehicle comprises at least one industrial truck; and a light barrier; wherein the light barrier is configured to detect an industrial truck approaching the transfer unit and a person approaching the transfer unit, and the light barrier is also able to distinguish between the two, as taught by SSI Schafer, in order to monitor the area and execute an emergency stop if a person is detected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 and 17-18 would likely be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: As best understood given the 112 issues discussed above, the deployable running rail set forth in claims 5 and 17 differentiates the claims from the prior art when considered in combination with the other limitations of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cited references show other pallet transfer and alignment systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK C HAGEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5547. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:15-4:45 (PST).
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 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.
/MARK C HAGEMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652