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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/23/26 has been entered.
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 cam arrangement (claim 37) and friction gear arrangement (claim 38) must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 7, 14, 15, 17, 25, 27, 28, 31 and 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (DE 4229215) in view of Xia et al (CN 104609199), both previously cited).
Schmidt shows a gripping device 1 configured for being suspended from a load handling device (not shown but coupling eyelet 7 is disclosed for being engaged with a lifting device) for lifting and moving containers 2, which could be stacked in stacks in a grid storage structure having a plurality of tracks arranged in a grid pattern above the stacks of containers, the gripping device comprising:
a frame (not separately identified but readily apparent in Figs. 1-2) having a top side and a bottom side; and
at least one gripping assembly mounted on the frame comprising:
at least two grippers 3, each gripper of the at least two grippers being configured to engage a container 2 located below the frame, each gripper being movable between a gripping position for gripping a container (Figs. 2-4) and a release position for releasing a container (Fig. 1), each gripper of the at least two grippers comprising a pair of legs 3 pivotally mounted to the frame so as to be movable away from each other to define an open configuration (Fig. 2) corresponding to either the gripping position or the release position and toward each other to define a closed configuration (Fig. 1) corresponding to the other of the gripping position and the release position, each leg of the pair of legs including a foot 12 configured to engage a container when the gripper is in the gripping position, the legs in each pair of legs being engaged with each other such that pivotal rotation of one of the legs in each pair of legs causes pivotal rotation of the other leg in each pair of legs in an opposite direction (i.e., in the English translation attached to this Office action, Schmidt discloses: “In Fig. 2, the actuation of the claws 3 for their pivoting is shown in a simplified manner, for example in each case a double claw. About the locking lever 2 (sic; this should apparently be 6), not shown here, a link rod 9 is laterally displaced and thus pivots the right link lever 3, which is pivotable about a pivot axis 10 by a small certain angle. The second claw 3 of a pair of claws is taken along by a roller 11 and is thereby also pivoted about an axis 10, but in the opposite direction); and
a single actuator (lever 6 and the unlabeled shaft to which it is attached) mounted to the frame and coupled to the at least two grippers by a linkage assembly 9 mechanically interconnecting the at least two grippers, the linkage assembly comprising a linkage arm 9 engaged with one leg from each pair of legs and rigidly coupling the legs, such that actuation of the single actuator drives the at least two grippers substantially simultaneously from the gripping position to the release position and/or from the release position to the gripping position (Fig. 2).
Schmidt does not show that the single actuator is a linear actuator comprising a longitudinal actuator body aligned parallel to a vertical plane in which the at least two grippers lie.
Xia shows a generally similar lifting frame having a gripping assembly mounted thereon, comprising: at least two grippers 21/31, each gripper of the at least two grippers being configured to engage articles 5 located below the frame, each gripper being movable between a gripping position (Figs. 1-2) and a release position (not explicitly identified but implicit from Fig. 4), each gripper of the at least two grippers comprising a pair of legs (one each of 21 and 31; Fig.4) mounted to the frame so as to be movable away from each other to define an open configuration corresponding to either the gripping position or the release position and toward each other to define a closed configuration corresponding to the other of the gripping position and the release position, each leg of the pair of legs including a foot configured to engage an article when the gripper is in the gripping position (Figs. 1-2), and a single linear actuator 4 mounted to the frame and coupled to the at least two grippers by a linkage assembly (not separately identified but readily apparent in the figures) mechanically interconnecting the at least two grippers, the linkage assembly comprising a linkage arm engaged with one leg from each pair of legs and rigidly coupling the legs, such that actuation of the single linear actuator drives the at least two grippers substantially simultaneously from the gripping position to the release position and/or from the release position to the gripping position, wherein the single linear actuator comprises a longitudinal actuator body aligned parallel to a vertical plane in which the at least two grippers lie. The arrangement provides simplicity, convenience, efficiency and reliability, as noted in at least the abstract.
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 Schmidt by configuring the single actuator as a linear actuator comprised of a longitudinal actuator body aligned parallel to a vertical plane in which the at least two grippers lie, as shown by Xia, as this would simply be the selection of one of a finite number of known actuators from which to choose for the purpose of moving pairs of gripper legs towards and away from each other, and would provide a simple, convenient, efficient and reliable gripping operation, especially since applicant acknowledges in par. [0139] that the use of a linear actuator is non-critical and could be replaced with another actuator.
Re claim 7, Schmidt shows that the feet of the legs in each pair of legs extend in opposite directions away from each other.
Re claim 14, Schmidt shows that each leg extends below the frame and each foot is located below the frame.
Re claim 15, Schmidt shows that each foot comprises an upward-facing engagement surface 15 for engaging with a downward-facing engagement surface 5/16 of a container.
Re claim 17, when modified as above, the linear actuator of Schmidt would obviously be mounted on the frame “adjacent to” (as broadly recited) the at least two grippers.
Re claim 25, the apparatus of Schmidt as modified comprises a load handling device for lifting and moving containers, which could be stacked in stacks in a grid storage structure having a plurality of tracks arranged in a grid pattern above the stacks of containers, the load handling device comprising:
a body (not specifically identified but note the gripping assembly is disclosed as being attached to a crane, which would inherently have a body);
a driving mechanism (again, not separately identified but inherent in a crane) operatively arranged for moving the body on the tracks of the grid storage structure;
a lifting mechanism (again, inherent in a crane) mounted to the body; and
a gripping device according to claim 1 suspended from the lifting mechanism (via coupling eyelet 7, as noted above) and configured for releasably gripping a container which could be in a stack in the grid storage structure.
Re claim 27, Schmidt shows that the at least one gripping assembly is mounted along one end of the frame (Fig. 1).
Re claim 28, Schmidt shows that the gripping device comprises a first gripping assembly mounted along one end of the frame and a second gripping assembly mounted along an opposing end of the frame (Fig. 1).
Re claim 31, Xia shows that the linkage assembly further comprises an intermediate linkage member rigidly coupling the single linear actuator to the linkage arm (not separately identified but apparent in the figures). This feature would obviously be included in the apparatus of Schmidt when modified as above.
Re claims 34-36, Xia discloses the single linear actuator to be an hydraulic cylinder rather than an electro-mechanical or bi-stable linear solenoid actuator. However, insofar as applicant acknowledges in par. [0132] that the linear actuator “may be any suitable type” thereof, it would have been obvious to have substituted an electro-mechanical or bi-stable linear solenoid actuator for the hydraulic cylinder of Xia in the modified apparatus of Schmidt, as the examiner takes Official Notice that such a substitution would simply be the selection of one known alternate equivalent type of “suitable” linear actuator for another, and would eliminate the expense, complexity and increased maintenance of an hydraulic system.
Claims 5, 26, 29, 30, 33, 37 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt in view of Xia et al, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Austrheim (WO 2020/094339, previously cited).
Re claim 5, although Schmidt appears to show in Fig. 2 that the legs in each pair of legs are configured in a meshed engagement with each other, there is no explicit disclosure of this.
Austrheim shows (Figs. 4E-F) a gripping device configured for being suspended from a load handling device 400 for lifting and moving containers 6 stacked in stacks in a grid storage structure 100 having a plurality of tracks 110/111 arranged in a grid pattern above the stacks of containers, the gripping device comprising: a frame 17 having a top side and a bottom side; and at least one gripping assembly mounted on the frame, the gripping assembly including: at least two grippers 24, each gripper of the at least two grippers being configured to engage a container located below the frame, each gripper being movable between a gripping position for gripping a container and a release position for releasing a container; and a single actuator 70 mounted to the frame and coupled to the at least two grippers by a linkage assembly 70b such that actuation of the single actuator drives the at least two grippers in opposite directions and substantially simultaneously from the gripping position to the release position and/or from the release position to the gripping position.
Austrheim further shows that the legs in each pair of legs are configured in a meshed engagement with each other (Fig. 4F).
To whatever if any extent the feature may not be disclosed by Schmidt, 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 Schmidt such that the legs in each pair of legs were configured in a meshed engagement with each other, as shown by Austrheim, to ensure that movement in one direction of the one leg of each pair of legs connected to the linkage assembly caused an equal and opposite movement of the other leg of each pair of legs, thereby providing an effective means of moving the legs between the gripping and release positions of each joined pair thereof.
Re claim 26, Schmidt as modified shows a storage and retrieval system for containers, including a load handling device, which could be used in a grid storage structure having a plurality of tracks arranged in a grid pattern above a plurality of containers stacked in stacks beneath the grid pattern, wherein the load handling device could move on the tracks of the grid storage structure for lifting and moving the containers, as noted above with respect to claim 25, but does not actually disclose such a grid storage structure with stacks of containers.
Austrheim, as noted above, discloses a storage and retrieval system comprising a grid storage structure 100 having a plurality of tracks 110/111 arranged in a grid pattern above stacks of containers 6, a plurality of such stacks of containers arranged beneath the grid pattern, and at least one load handling device 400 arranged to move on the tracks of the grid storage structure for lifting and moving the containers, the load handling device comprising: a body 13, a driving mechanism 14/15 operatively arranged for moving the body on the tracks of grid storage structure, a lifting mechanism 31/36/37 mounted to the body, and a gripping device 18 suspended from the lifting mechanism and configured for releasably gripping a container in a stack in the grid storage structure.
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 Schmidt by incorporating the load handling device thereof into a storage and retrieval system comprising a grid storage structure having a plurality of tracks arranged in a grid pattern above stacks of containers, with a plurality of such stacks of containers arranged beneath the grid pattern, wherein the at least one load handling device was arranged to move on the tracks of the grid storage structure for lifting and moving the containers, as shown by Austrheim, to enable a large number of containers to be efficiently and effectively handled in a relatively compact space.
Re claims 29 and 30, Austrheim further discloses at least one guide member 30 mounted to the frame and configured for being received by a corresponding portion of a container for aligning the frame with the container, wherein the at least one guide member extends further below the frame than the grippers of the at least one gripping assembly (Fig. 4A). The additional inclusion of such features in the modified apparatus of Schmidt would have been obvious to facilitate and ensure accurate alignment of the gripping frame with the containers during retrieval thereof.
Re claim 33, Austrheim shows that the legs in each pair of legs comprise teeth in meshed engagement with each other. This feature would obviously be included in the apparatus of Schmidt when modified as above.
Re claims 37 and 38, insofar as the features thereof are not shown in the drawings, nor are they disclosed with any further specificity, the meshed teeth of Austrheim are considered to comprise a cam arrangement and/or a friction gear arrangement, as broadly recited. Furthermore, in the event applicant is able to show, without introducing new matter, that these arrangements are structurally distinct from a meshed teeth arrangement, the use of a cam or friction gear arrangement instead of meshed teeth as the means of engaging the legs in each pair of legs with each other is considered to be a mere substitution of one known type of engaging means with another, and the examiner takes Official Notice that such a substitution would simply be the selection of one of a finite number of known alternate equivalent types of engaging means, the selection of which would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 32 is 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.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection do not rely on any references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Notwithstanding the above, to whatever if any extent applicant’s arguments may apply to the new grounds of rejection (in particular the assertion that Schmidt fails to disclose a pair of legs engaged with each other so that rotation of one leg causes rotation of the other in the opposite direction, or a single linkage arm that, by engaging only one leg of each such pair, drives both grippers and both legs of each pair substantially simultaneously), they are not persuasive. To the contrary, Schmidt is seen as disclosing these features, as noted above in par. 6.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at 571-270-5565. 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
7/29/26
Prosecution Insights