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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-19 were previously pending. Claims 1-2, 15, and 18-19 were amended in the reply filed February 17, 2026. Claims 1-19 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejections made under §§ 102 & 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the elastomeric bearings of Moutsokapas have a different function than the thermal break in the claims. Remarks, 6-7. Although the reference does not use the same term "thermal break," identity of terminology is not a requirement of a prior art reference. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The Figures of Moutsokapas (Fig. 7—89) show the elastomeric bearing in the same placement of Applicant's invention (Fig. 6-7—2), where heat must pass through the bearing rather than being transferred directly between the rail system and the columns (see published Specification ¶ 0095). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). One of ordinary skill would have recognized that the elastomeric bearings meet the recited requirements. "It is noted that all synthetic polymers and wood will have a thermal conductivity significantly lower than the thermal conductivity of an aluminium alloy suitable for constructing a framework structure according to the invention." Published Specification, ¶ 0094 (emphasis added).
Applicant also argues that "Moutsokapas discloses significant thermal contact between the rail system and the column profiles." Remarks, 7. However, none of the sections cited support this. Arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”).
Finally, Applicant also argues that "a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to consider the thermal properties of the elastomeric bearing of Moutsokapas to arrive at claim 1, at least because the thermal properties of the elastomeric bearing are not relevant to its intended function as an adjustable spacer to permit relative movements of the framework." Remarks, 7. Motivation is not an issue as this is a rejection made under § 102 and, as above, a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art. Accordingly, the rejections are maintained.
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.
Claims 1, 3-7, 11-12, 15-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moutsokapas, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2004/0182025 (U.S. Pat. Pub. Citation 1 of the IDS filed 10/31/2023).
As per claim 1, Moutsokapas teaches a framework structure for a storage system, the framework structure comprises a plurality of vertical column profiles and a horizontal rail system supported upon the vertical column profiles (Fig. 1—20, 30), wherein at least a lower section of each of the column profiles is thermally divided from the rail system by a thermal break positioned at each column profile between a lower section of the column profile and a connection to the rail system (Fig. 7—89), the thermal break being configured to restrict thermal conductivity between the lower section of the column profile and the rail system (¶ 0037—elastomeric bearings), wherein the thermal break comprises a thermal break material having a thermal conductivity lower than 20 W/mK (¶ 0037—one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that an elastomeric composition would result in conductivity lower than 20 W/mK (see published Specification ¶ 0094)).
As per claim 3, Moutsokapas teaches claim 1 as above. Moutsokapas further teaches the thermal break material is a synthetic polymer or wood (¶ 0037—elastomeric bearings).
As per claim 4, Moutsokapas teaches claim 1 as above. Moutsokapas further teaches the thermal break is configured such that heat being conducted between the lower section of the column profile and the rail system must pass through the thermal break material (Fig. 7—89).
As per claim 5, Moutsokapas teaches claim 1 as above. Moutsokapas further teaches the thermal break comprises a horizontal plate arranged between the rail system and at least the lower section of the column profiles (Fig. 7—89).
As per claim 6, Moutsokapas teaches claim 5 as above. Moutsokapas further teaches the horizontal plate of each thermal break extends transversely to the column profiles, at a common height arranged between the rail system and at least the lower section of the column profiles (Fig. 7—89).
As per claim 7, Moutsokapas teaches claim 5 as above. Moutsokapas further teaches the thermal break comprises vertical protrusions, the vertical protrusions arranged to interact with a surface of the column profile or the rail system to restrict horizontal movement between the thermal break and the column profile or the rail system, respectively (¶ 0040).
As per claim 11, Moutsokapas teaches claim 5 as above. Moutsokapas further teaches the thermal break is arranged at an uppermost end of the column profile, and the rail system is supported on the thermal break (Fig. 7).
As per claim 12, Moutsokapas teaches claim 11 as above. Moutsokapas further teaches the thermal break comprises vertical protrusions arranged at opposite sides of at least one rail of the rail system, the vertical protrusions restricting horizontal movement between the thermal break and the rail in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the rail (Fig. 7; ¶ 0040).
As per claim 15, Moutsokapas teaches a storage system for storage containers, the storage system comprising a framework structure for a storage system, the framework structure comprises a plurality of vertical column profiles and a horizontal rail system supported upon the vertical column profiles (Fig. 1—20, 30), wherein at least a lower section of each of the column profiles is thermally divided from the rail system by a thermal break positioned at each column profile between a lower section of the column profile and a connection to the rail system (Fig. 7—89), the thermal break being configured to restrict thermal conductivity between the lower section of the column profile and the rail system (¶ 0037—elastomeric bearings), and a plurality of container handling vehicles arranged to operate upon the rail system (¶ 0033).
As per claim 16, Moutsokapas teaches claim 15 as above. Moutsokapas further teaches the vertical column profiles define storage columns in which storage containers are stored on top of one another in vertical stacks (Fig. 1; ¶¶ 0033, 41).
As per claim 18, Moutsokapas teaches a method of constructing a framework structure for a cooled storage structure, the framework structure comprising a plurality of vertical column profiles and a rail system upon which container handling vehicles may move in two perpendicular directions, the method comprising the steps of: providing a thermal break for each of the column profiles (Fig. 7—89); mounting the profile columns to be able to support the rail system (Fig. 1—20, 30); arranging the thermal breaks at positions to thermally divide at least a lower section of each column profile from the rail system, such that thermal conductivity between at least the lower section of the profile columns and the rail system to be supported by the profile columns is restricted (Fig. 7—89; ¶ 0037—elastomeric bearings); and constructing the rail system supported by the profile columns (Fig. 1).
As per claim 19, Moutsokapas teaches a method of preventing loss of wheel traction of a container handling vehicle operating on a rail system of a cooled storage system, the cooled storage system comprising a plurality of vertical column profiles upon which the rail system is supported, the method comprises the steps of: providing a thermal break for each of the column profiles (Fig. 1; Fig. 7—89); and arranging the thermal breaks to thermally divide at least a lower section of each of the column profiles from the rail system, such that thermal conductivity between the lower section of the column profile and the rail system, to which the column profile is connected, is restricted (Fig. 7—89; ¶ 0037—elastomeric bearings).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moutsokapas, et al. in view of Litke, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 9,004,715 (U.S. Pat. Citation 1 of the IDS filed 10/31/2023).
As per claim 2, Moutsokapas teaches claim 1 as above. Moutsokapas does not explicitly teach that the column profiles are made in an aluminium alloy; which is taught by Litke (col. 4, lines 19-27). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element for the same reason it is useful in Litke—namely, to provide a lightweight and inexpensive construction material. Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art of supporting structures. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
Claims 8-10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moutsokapas, et al. in view of Austrheim, Intl. Pat. Pub. No. WO 2019/101367 (Reference N of the PTO-892 part of paper no. 20251126).
As per claim 2, Moutsokapas teaches claim 1 as above. Moutsokapas does not explicitly teach each of the column profiles has a hollow centre section and four corner sections, each corner section defined by a pair of vertically extending, outwardly projecting, perpendicular flanges; which is taught by Austrheim (Abst.; pgs. 6-7; Fig. 5). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element because it is merely a combination of old elements in the art of loading support structures. This can also be viewed as a substitution of the hollow columns in Austrheim for the recessed columns in Moutsokapas (see Fig. 10—84). One of ordinary skill would have recognized that either column structure would be capable of providing the required support and yield only predictable results.
As per claim 9, Moutsokapas in view of Austrheim teaches claim 8 as above. Moutsokapas further teaches the thermal break comprises four corner sections with respect to the respective four corner sections of the column profile. Moutsokapas does not explicitly teach that the corner sections are fully overlapping. However, this is merely a change in size/proportion of the thermal break. It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that having the corners fully overlapping would not perform differently from the prior art device in Moutsokapas. See also MPEP 21.44.04 IV. A.
As per claim 10, Moutsokapas in view of Austrheim teaches claim 8 as above. Moutsokapas further teaches the thermal break comprises vertical protrusions arranged to interact with internal or external surfaces of the column profile to restrict horizontal movement between the thermal break and the column profile (Fig. 7; ¶ 0040). Austrheim further teaches the column has a hollow centre section (Abst.); which would have been obvious to incorporate for the same reasons as in claim 8 above.
As per claim 14, Moutsokapas in view of Austrheim teaches claim 8 as above. Moutsokapas further teaches a plurality of storage columns in which storage containers may be stacked on top of one another in vertical stacks, each storage column is defined by one corner section from each of four column profiles (Fig. 1), the corner sections arranged to accommodate a corner of a storage container (Fig. 1), and the thermal break of each column profile is configured to be flush with or recessed from the corner sections of the column profile such that the corner sections are unobstructed between the rail system and a lower end of the storage column (Fig. 7).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moutsokapas, et al.
As per claim 13, Moutsokapas teaches claim 1 as above. Moutsokapas further teaches the column profile comprises a lower profile section and an upper profile section (Fig. 7—82; see also ¶ 0037—enlarged diameter end piece). Moutsokapas does not explicitly teach the sections are interconnected via the thermal break. However, this is merely a rearrangement of the parts already shown in the prior art. It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element because moving the thermal break to a position between the end piece and the lower column section would not have altered the operation of the device and still achieved the same predictable results. See also MPEP 21.44.04 VI. C.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moutsokapas, et al. in view of Hognaland, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2017/0176082 (Reference A of the PTO-892 part of paper no. 20251126).
As per claim 13, Moutsokapas teaches claim 1 as above. Moutsokapas does not explicitly teach a cooling system arranged to provide cooled air to a section of the storage system arranged below the rail system; which is taught by Hognaland II (Abst.). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element for the same reason it is useful in Hognaland—namely, to keep certain items chilled. Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art of storage systems. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL VETTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1366. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
/DANIEL VETTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628