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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 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 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.
Claim(s) 13 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Austrheim (WO 2019081092 A1) [See Austrheim (US 20200290803 A1) for Paragraph and Figure references].
PNG
media_image1.png
165
476
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 13, Austrheim teaches:
A cover for a storage system comprising a framework structure (Fig. 1 & Fig. 9) featuring multiple storage columns (5) for storing storage containers (6) stacked on top of one another in vertical stacks (7) (Fig. 1 & Fig. 9), wherein the cover comprises:
a cover plate (21); and
a cover holding assembly (24) arranged at each of two opposite sides of the cover plate,
wherein each of the cover holding assemblies comprises a stop (1000) and an actuable portion (1001) [0029 & 0030 & 0035 & 0070 & 0072], and connected relative to cover plate such that the stop is moved beyond a periphery of the cover plate when the actuable portion is deflected inwardly towards a side of the cover plate being opposite the side at which the actuable portion is arranged (Fig. 2B).
Austrheim does not teach:
an actuator portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an actuator portion for effecting movement of the actuable portion in order to facilitate attachment and detachment of the stop in order to engage and disengage the cover plate without deformation of the stop or cover plate to reduce wear in the system since the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that actuators for actuating gripping were well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 18, Austrheim teaches:
A cover for a storage system comprising a framework structure (Fig. 1 & Fig. 9) featuring multiple storage columns (5) for storing storage containers (6) stacked on top of one another in vertical stacks (7) (Fig. 1 & Fig. 9), wherein the cover comprises:
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2026/04/07 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument of the Examiner’s rejection of Claim 13, especially as it relates to the limitation of “a cover comprising a cover plate and a holding assembly”:
Applicant’s assertion that the “connecting elements 24”, referred to as the “holding assembly” in the office action, of the “container-handling vehicle” are completely separate from the “floor element 21”, referred to as the “cover plate” in the action, and therefore does not teach the limitations of the claim is not persuasive as applicant's argument relies on features that are not recited in the rejected claim(s) as there is no structural relationship between the holding assembly and the cover plate in the limitations of Claim 13. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding Applicant’s argument of the Examiner’s rejection of Claim 13, especially as it relates to the limitation of “a stop and an actuator portion, and is connected relative to cover plate such that the stop is moved beyond a periphery of the cover plate when the actuator portion is deflected inwardly towards a side of the cover plate being opposite the side at which the actuator portion is arranged”:
Applicants assertion that the actuable portion supporting the stop of the cover holding assembly of Austrheim does not teach the stop and an actuator portion of the instant application is not persuasive as Austrheim teaches that the connecting elements “releasably connect” [0016] to the cover plate with “releasable hooks” [0072] which implies a means of deflecting the hooks into a disengaged position.
Additionally the Examiner’s assertion of OFFICIAL NOTICE as it relates to actuator portions for effecting movement of an actuable portion is taken to be admitted prior art due to the Applicant's failure to traverse the Examiner's assertion of OFFICIAL NOTICE.
Regarding Applicant’s argument of the Examiner’s rejection of Claim 13, especially as it relates to the Examiner’s motivation to modify the apparatus of Austrheim:
Applicant’s assertion that the Examiner’s motivation to modify the invention of Austrheim relies on hindsight reasoning is not persuasive as the feature which the Applicant argues would require a modification is taught by Austrheim and therefore requires no motivation to modify.
Regarding Applicant’s argument of the Examiner’s rejection of Claim 8 especially as it relates to the limitation of “a cover comprising a cover plate and a holding assembly”:
Applicant’s assertion that the “connecting elements 24”, referred to as the “holding assembly” in the office action, of the “container-handling vehicle” are completely separate from the “floor element 21”, referred to as the “cover plate” in the action, and therefore does not teach the limitations of the claim is not persuasive as applicant's argument relies on features that are not recited in the rejected claim(s) as there is no structural relationship between the holding assembly and the cover plate in the limitations of Claim 18. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding Applicant’s argument of the Examiner’s rejection of Claim 18, especially as it relates to the limitation of “a stop and an actuator portion, and is connected relative to cover plate such that the stop is moved beyond a periphery of the cover plate when the actuator portion is deflected inwardly towards a side of the cover plate being opposite the side at which the actuator portion is arranged”:
Applicants assertion that the actuable portion supporting the stop of the cover holding assembly of Austrheim does not teach the a stop and an actuator portion of the instant application is not persuasive as Austrheim teaches that the connecting elements “releasably connect” [0016] to the cover plate with “releasable hooks” [0072] which implies a means of deflecting the hooks into a disengaged position.
Additionally the Examiner’s assertion of OFFICIAL NOTICE as it relates to actuator portions for effecting movement of an actuable portion is taken to be admitted prior art due to the Applicant's failure to traverse the Examiner's assertion of OFFICIAL NOTICE.
Regarding Applicant’s argument of the Examiner’s rejection of Claim 18, especially as it relates to the Examiner’s motivation to modify the apparatus of Austrheim:
Applicant’s assertion that the Examiner’s motivation to modify the invention of Austrheim relies on hindsight reasoning is not persuasive as the feature which the Applicant argues would require a modification is taught by Austrheim and therefore requires no motivation to modify.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12, 14-17, and 19-24 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The art of record fails to render obvious the claimed combination of: “A storage system comprising a framework structure featuring multiple storage columns for storing storage containers stacked on top of one another in vertical stacks, and at least one of the storage columns comprises: a cover and a pair of cover interaction elements, wherein the cover interaction elements are arranged each at opposite sides of an inner periphery of the storage column, and wherein the cover comprises :a horizontal cover plate, having a periphery that can be accommodated within the inner periphery of the storage column; and at least two cover holding assemblies arranged at opposite sides of the cover plate, wherein each of the cover holding assemblies comprises a stop and an actuator portion, and is connected relative to the cover plate such that the stop is moved in a direction outwardly beyond the inner periphery of the storage column, from a first position to a second position, during lowering of the cover relative to the storage column, and wherein the stop is arranged to hold the cover at a predetermined level by interaction with a ledge at the inner periphery of the storage column when in the second position.”, as recited in Claim 1 specifically:
the structural and operative relationship between the framework structure, storage columns, storage containers, cover, cover interaction elements, horizontal cover plate, cover holding assemblies, stop, actuator portion, and ledge. Especially as it relates to the relationship between the framework structure, storage columns, storage containers, cover, cover interaction elements, horizontal cover plate, cover holding assemblies, stop, actuator portion, and ledge.
The art of record fails to render obvious the claimed combination of: “A method of locating a cover within a storage column of a storage system comprising a framework structure featuring multiple storage columns for storing storage containers stacked on top of one another in vertical stacks, and at least one of the storage columns comprises a cover and a pair of cover interaction elements, wherein the cover interaction elements are arranged each at opposite sides of the inner periphery of the storage column, wherein the cover comprises: a horizontal cover plate, having a periphery that can be accommodated within an inner periphery of the storage column; and at least two cover holding assemblies arranged at opposite sides of the cover plate wherein each of the cover holding assemblies comprises a stop and an actuator portion, and is pivotably connected relative to the cover plate such that the stop is moved in a horizontal direction outwardly beyond the inner periphery of the storage column, from a first position to a second position, during lowering of the cover relative to the storage column, wherein the stop is arranged to hold the cover at a predetermined level by interaction with a ledge at the inner periphery of the storage column when in the second position, the method comprising: lowering the cover into the storage column; moving the stop into the second position by interaction of the actuator portion with the corresponding cover interaction element; and holding the cover at a predetermined level relative to the storage column by interaction of the stop with a ledge at the inner periphery of the storage column.”, as recited in Claim 14 specifically:
the structural and operative relationship between the cover, storage column, storage system, framework structure, storage containers, stacks, cover, cover interaction elements, horizontal cover plate, cover holding assemblies, stop, actuator portion, and ledge. Especially as it relates to the relationship between the cover, storage column, storage system, framework structure, storage containers, stacks, cover, cover interaction elements, horizontal cover plate, cover holding assemblies, stop, actuator portion, and ledge.
The art of record fails to render obvious the claimed combination of: “A method of locating a cover inside a column, the column comprising; a pair of cover interaction elements arranged each on opposed sides of the column, the two cover interaction elements are arranged at opposite sides of the inner periphery of the column; and the cover, wherein the cover comprises: a horizontal cover plate having a periphery that can be accommodated within an inner periphery of the column; and at least two cover holding assemblies arranged at opposite sides of the cover plate, wherein each of the cover holding assemblies comprises a stop and an actuator portion, and is connected relative to the cover plater wherein the method comprises: lowering the cover into the column; deflecting the actuator portion inwardly of the inner periphery of the storage column by interaction with a corresponding cover interaction element, thereby moving the stop in a horizontal direction outwardly beyond the inner periphery of the storage column; and interacting the stop with a ledge positioned at the inner periphery of the column to hold the cover at a desired level within the column.”, as recited in Claim 15 specifically:
the structural and operative relationship between the cover, column, cover interaction elements, horizontal cover plate, cover holding assemblies, cover holding assemblies, stop, actuator portion, cover interaction element, and ledge. Especially as it relates to the relationship between the cover, storage column, storage system, framework structure, storage containers, stacks, cover, cover interaction elements, horizontal cover plate, cover holding assemblies, stop, actuator portion, and ledge.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 BRENDAN P TIGHE whose telephone number is 571-272-4872. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 7:00-5:30 EST
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SAUL RODRIGUEZ can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRENDAN P TIGHE/Examiner, Art Unit 3652
/SAUL RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights