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. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 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. “Engagement means” in Claims 1-12, 15 , 16 and 1 7-20 is being interpreted as invoking 35 USC 112(b). The “engagement means” in the specification on Page 9, Line 27 thru Page 10, Line 8 is described as a pair of gripper elements or a clamping mechanism described on Page 12, Lines 30-32 . This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “engagement means” in claims 1 3 , 14, 21 and 22 . Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-23 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 1 recites the limitation “the goods holder” in Line 9 of the claim. It is not clear whether “the goods holder” in Line 9 is singular as recited in Line 9 or if it is plural as recited in Line 1. For examination purposes, “the goods holder” recited in Line 9 is being interpreted as “a goods holder of said goods holders”. Claim 15 recites the limitation “at least one handling vehicle” in Line 5 of the claim. It is not clear whether “at least one handling vehicle” in Line 5 is permitted to be singular as recited in Line 5 or if it is plural as recited in Line 4. For examination purposes, “at least one handling vehicle” recited in Line 5 is being interpreted as “at least one handling vehicle of said plurality of handling vehicles”. Claim 15 recites the limitation “a lifting device” in Line 5 of the claim. It is not clear whether “a lifting device” in Line 5 is referencing “a lifting device” recited in Claim 1 5 or not rendering the claim indefinite . For examination purposes, “ a lifting device ” recited in Line 5 is being interpreted as “ said lifting device ”. Claim 15 recites the limitation “a storage column” in Line 6 of the claim. It is not clear whether “a storage column” in Line 6 is permitted to be singular as recited in Line 6 or if it is plural as recited in Line 2. For examination purposes, “a storage column” recited in Line 6 is being interpreted as “a storage column of said plurality of storage columns”. Claim 17 recites the limitation “the goods holder” in Line 13 of the claim. It is not clear whether “the goods holder” in Line 13 is referencing “goods holders” recited in Line 1 or not rendering the claim indefinite. For examination purposes, “the goods holder” recited in Line 13 is being interpreted as “ the goods holder of said goods holders ”. The remaining claims are rejected because they depend on rejected claims. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim s 1 , 2, 9, 10 , 13 , 15 , 17 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beijing Geekplus Tech Co LTD CN 112389920, supplied by Applicant and in view of Hognaland et al. 10,294,025 . In Re Claim s 1, 10 , 13 , 15 , 17 and 21-23 , as best understood, Beijing Geekplus Tech teaches an assembly for handling goods holders, such as storage containers, storage trays, and/or storage pallets, of an automated storage and retrieval system, said assembly comprising: a base body (602, Fig. 10) for connection to a lifting device (5010, 600) for vertical transportation of the goods holders (containers shown in storage columns, Fig. 11a-11d) in a storage column (storage columns shown, Fig. 11a-11d), a lifting frame (5011, 601, Fig. 10) having a central opening (Fig. 10), said lifting frame being arranged at a vertical distance (distance shown, Fig. 10) below said base body, at least one connecting element (connection pin between 601 and 602, Fig. 10) for connecting the lifting frame and the base body, wherein the vertical distance between the lifting frame and the base body is variable , (Fig. 11a-11e) and automated storage and retrieval system comprising a framework structure ( Fig. 1a, Fig. 1b ) that comprises a plurality of storage columns (Fig. 1a ) for storing goods holders, (Fig. 11) wherein a rail system ( Fig. 1b ) is arranged across the top of the framework structure, wherein a plurality of handling vehicles ( 500 ) operates on said rail system, and wherein at least one handling vehicle comprises a lifting device ( 600 ) for vertical transportation of the goods holders in a storage column ; and a method for handling goods holders, such as storage containers(containers shown in storage columns, Fig. 11a-11d), storage trays, and/or storage pallets, of an automated storage and retrieval system (Fig. 1a, Fig. 1b), said method comprising: providing a base body (602, Fig. 10) for connection to a lifting device (5010, 600) being part of container handling vehicle (500), wherein the lifting device vertically transports goods holders in a storage column (see storage columns Fig. 1a), providing a lifting frame (5011, 601, Fig. 10) having a central opening (Fig. 10), said lifting frame being arranged at a vertical distance (distance shown, Fig. 10) below said base body, connecting the lifting frame and the base body by means of at least one connecting element (connection pin between 601 and 602, Fig. 10) so that the vertical distance between the lifting frame and the base body is variable. Beijing Geekplus Tech does not teach an engagement means associated with the lifting frame and for engaging with the goods holder. However, Hognaland et al. teach an engagement means (gripper element 9b, Fig. 14b) associated with the lifting frame (9) and for engaging with the goods holder ; and providing engagement means (gripper element 9b, Fig. 14b) associated with the lifting frame and for engaging with the goods holder; and wherein the assembly further comprises a lifting frame guide (9c) for preventing tilting of the base body and/or of the lifting frame ; and wherein engagement means is at least one gripper element (9B) arranged at a bottom face of the lifting frame ; (Fig. 10) and wherein engagement means is at least one gripper element (9B) arranged at a bottom face of the lifting frame (9), said method further comprising: extending the lifting frame in its longitudinal direction until said at least one gripper element is aligned with a corresponding peripheral through-recess of a storage tray positioned in an adjacent storage column; (Fig. 4)(Fig. 11) and lowering the lifting frame until said at least one gripper element is accommodated by the corresponding through-recess and engaged with the storage tray ; (Fig. 4)(Fig. 11) and retracting the lifting frame until the lifting frame is re-aligned with the base body. (Fig. 11) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add an engagement means in the system of Beijink Geekplus Tech as taught by Hognaland et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to be able to grab and secure bins. In Re Claim 2, Beijing Geekplus Tech teaches wherein at least one of the lifting frame and the base body is movable relative to the other one. (See Fig. 11a-11e) In Re Claim 9, Beijing Geekplus Tech teaches wherein a side of the base body that faces the lifting frame is provided with protruding elements (603) . Claim s 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beijing Geekplus Tech Co LTD CN 112389920 /Hognaland , supplied by Applicant, and in view of Tanaka et al. 5,423,503 . In Re Claim 3 and 4 , Beijing Geekplus Tech /Hognaland teaches the assembly of Claim 1 as discussed above. Beijing Geekplus Tech /Hognaland does not teach wherein the assembly further comprises a locking element for locking the lifting frame in a selected position relative to the base body. However, Tanaka et al. teach wherein the assembly further comprises a locking element (30, 36a, Fig. 6) for locking the lifting frame (Bottom 55, Fig. 10) in a selected position relative to the base body ; (body above 55, Fig . 10) (Column 6, Lines 20-40) and wherein the at least one connecting element comprises two pairs (64b, 64c, Fig. 10) of oppositely provided linking members. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a locking element in the system of Beijink Geekplus Tech /Hognaland et al. as taught by Tanaka et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order fix an interval distance . Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beijing Geekplus Tech /Hognaland , and in view of Segal 2,645,538 . In Re Claim 7, Beijing Geekplus Tech/Hognaland teaches the assembly of Claim 1 as discussed above. Beijing Geekplus Tech/Hognaland does not teach wherein the at least one connecting element comprises a plurality of telescopic members provided in the corners of the base body and of the lifting frame. However, Segal teaches wherein the at least one connecting element comprises a plurality of telescopic members (10) provided in the corners of the base body (23) and of the lifting frame (B) . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use a connecting element comprising telescoping members in the system of Beijink Geekplus Tech/Hognaland et al. as taught by Segal with a reasonable expectation for success in order adjust spacing in a stable steady motion. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beijing Geekplus Tech/Hognaland and in view of Kufel 9,198,508 . In Re Claim 8, Beijing Geekplus Tech/Hognaland teaches the assembly of Claim 1 as discussed above. Beijing Geekplus Tech/Hognaland does not teach wherein the assembly further comprises at least one collapsible side wall extending between the base body and the lifting frame. However, Kufel teaches wherein the assembly further comprises at least one collapsible side wall (6, Fig. 1 and 6) extending between the base body (1) and the lifting frame (7). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use a collapsible side walls in the system of Beijing Geekplus Tech/Hognaland as taught by Kuf e l with a reasonable expectation for success in order minimize volume used in a storage state (abstract). Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beijing Geekplus Tech/Hognaland and in view of Reimer et al. 9,266,674 . In Re Claim 11, Beijing Geekplus Tech/Hognaland teaches the assembly of Claim 10 as discussed above. Beijing Geekplus Tech/Hognaland does not teach wherein the lifting frame guide is fixedly connected to the base body and provided on a side of the base body facing away from the lifting frame . However, Reimer et al. teach wherein the lifting frame guide (50) is fixedly connected to the base body (41) and provided on a side of the base body facing away from the lifting frame (42). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use a lifting frame guide provided on a side of the base body facing away from the lifting frame in the system of Beijink Geekplus Tech/Hognaland et al. as taught by Reimer et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to prevent interference for height changes. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beijing Geekplus Tech/Hognaland and in view of Lin et al. 2021/0391201 . In Re Claim 14, Beijing Geekplus Tech/Hognaland the assembly of Claim 1 as discussed above. Beijing Geekplus Tech/Hognaland does not teach wherein engagement means is a clamping mechanism, wherein the lifting frame contacts periphery of the goods holder when said lifting frame is in engagement with the goods holder. However, Lin et al. teach wherein engagement means is a clamping mechanism (14) , wherein the lifting frame contacts periphery of the goods holder (C10, Fig. 7) when said lifting frame is in engagement with the goods holder. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use a clamping mechanism in the system of Beijink Geekplus Tech/Hognaland et al. as taught by Reimer et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to grip, hold, release and receive signals. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beijing Geekplus Tech Co LTD /Hognaland , and in view of Davis 4,181,078 . In Re Claim 16, Beijing Geekplus Tech/Hognaland teaches the assembly of Claim 15 as discussed above. Beijing Geekplus Tech/Hognaland does not teach wherein said system comprises a storage tray with at least one peripheral through-recess for accommodating the at least one gripper element. However, Davis teaches wherein said system comprises a storage tray (68) with at least one peripheral through-recess (202, 203) for accommodating the at least one gripper element (130, 132) . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use a storage tray in the system of Beijink Geekplus Tech/Hognaland et al. as taught by Davis with a reasonable expectation for success in order to reduce drops or spills. Claim s 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beijing Geekplus Tech Co LTD CN 112389920 /Hognaland ‘025 , supplied by Applicant, and in view of Tanaka et al. 5,423,503 . In Re Claim 18-20, Beijing Geekplus Tech teaches the assembly of Claim 17 as discussed above. Beijing Geekplus Tech /Hognaland ‘025 does not teach locking the lifting frame in a selected position relative to the base body. However, Tanaka et al. teach locking (Using locking element 30, 36a, Fig. 6) the lifting frame (Bottom 55, Fig. 10) in a selected position relative to the base body (body above 55, Fig . 10); (Column 6, Lines 20-40) and locking the lifting frame in the selected position, after the engagement means is engaged with the goods holder ; (Column 6, Lines 20-40) and lowering the base body, after the lifting frame is locked in the selected position. (Column 6, Lines 20-40) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a locking element in the system of Beijink Geekplus Tech /Hognaland ‘025 as taught by Tanaka et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to fix an interval distance. Allowable Subject Matter Claim s 5, 6 and 12 are 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. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Sekiya, Stadie et al. and Benedict et al. teach an assembly for handling goods holders comprising a base body, lifting device and engagement means. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT GLENN F MYERS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1160 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8-4 PM . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Saul Rodriguez can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT GLENN F. MYERS Examiner Art Unit 3652 /GLENN F MYERS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3652