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 Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: It appears “one or more object” should be “one or more objects” in line 9 of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 objected to because of the following informalities: It appears “positioned at the loading positioned” should be “positioned at the loading position” in line 3 of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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 2 and 5-6 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 2 and 5, it is unclear what is being claimed by the one or more gravitational forces, as this element has not been previously introduced.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-8, 11-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bretz (US Pub App 2018/0178979).
Regarding claim 1, Bretz discloses an automated storage and retrieval system (AS/RS) comprising
a first shuttle (38) positioned within a first aisle and configured for transportation along a first length of the first aisle to one or more first storage locations defined by the first aisle (Fig.3, Para.84);
a second shuttle (36) configured for transportation along a second length of the second aisle, the second aisle being at least substantially parallel to the first aisle (Fig.3, Para.84); and
an angled rack element (35) provided in between the first aisle and the second aisle (Fig.3, Para.84), wherein a first end of the angled rack element is positioned at least substantially adjacent the first aisle and a second end of the angled rack element is positioned at least substantially adjacent the second aisle (Fig.3), and wherein the angled rack element is configured to receive one or more object dispensed from the first shuttle onto a conveyance surface defined by the angled rack element (Fig.3);
wherein the angled rack element defines a pitch angle defined relative to a horizontal plane such that the angled rack element facilitates movement of the one or more object disposed on the conveyance surface along a unidirectional transportation path towards a loading position defined at least substantially adjacent the second end of the angled rack element (Fig.3); and
wherein the angled rack element is configured such that the one or more object provided in the loading position is accessible to the second shuttle via the second aisle to facilitate execution of a retrieval operation with respect to the one or more object by the second shuttle (Fig.3).
Regarding claim 2, Bretz further discloses wherein the angled rack element is configured to utilize the one or more gravitational forces to facilitate transportation of the one or more object from the first shuttle to the second shuttle (Fig.3).
Regarding claim 3, Bretz further discloses wherein the first shuttle (38) is configured to dispense a first object onto the angled rack element during a first dispense operation and subsequently dispense a second object onto the angled rack element during a distinct second dispense operation (Para.84); and wherein the angled rack element is configured to facilitate a first object movement of the first object and a second object movement of the second object along the unidirectional transportation path towards the second end of the angled rack element such that the first object is moved to the loading position and the second object is moved to an upstream position defined relative to the first object along the conveyance surface (Fig.3, Para.84+).
Regarding claim 4, Bretz further discloses wherein the second object is stopped in the upstream position based at least in part on the second object physically contacting the first object disposed in the loading position (Fig.3, gravity).
Regarding claim 5, Bretz further discloses wherein the angled rack element is configured such that, upon the first object being removed from the loading position by the second shuttle, the pitch angle causes the second object to automatically move along the unidirectional transportation path at least partially towards the second end of the angled rack element based at least in part on the one or more gravitational forces acting on the second object (Fig.3, gravity).
Regarding claim 6, Bretz further discloses wherein the second object is automatically moved along the unidirectional transportation path into the loading position (Fig.3, gravity).
Regarding claim 7, Bretz further discloses wherein the AS/RS comprises a plurality of aisles defined at least in part by the first aisle and the second aisle (Fig.3), wherein the first aisle and the second aisle are arranged relative to one another so as to define adjacent aisles within the plurality of aisles defined by the AS/RS (Fig.3, adjacent and parallel).
Regarding claim 8, Bretz further discloses wherein the first aisle and the second are separated by a separation distance defined in a direction perpendicular to both the first length and the second length, the separation distance being at least approximately between 2 feet and 10 feet (Fig.3, human for scale).
Regarding claim 11, Bretz further discloses wherein the angled rack element comprises one or more conveyance element arranged between the first end and the second end that define the conveyance surface and is configured to facilitate the movement of the one or more objects along the unidirectional transportation path (Para.88).
Regarding claim 12, Bretz further discloses wherein the one or more conveyance element is defined by a plurality of rollers (track rollers, guide rollers) comprising at least one idler roller (guide roller) rotatably installed between a set of opposing lateral frame elements, each of the rollers being configured to rotate about a respective central axis oriented in a direction at least substantially perpendicular to the unidirectional transportation path (Para.88).
Regarding claim 13, Bretz further discloses wherein the plurality of rollers further comprises a drive roller (track roller) positioned at least substantially adjacent the first end of the angled rack element, the drive roller being selectively operable to exhibit a motor-driven rotation in order cause a predetermined force to be applied to the one or more object disposed on the conveyance surface upon interaction with the drive roller (Para.88).
Regarding claim 14, Bretz further discloses wherein the one or more conveyance element is defined by a conveyor belt that defines the conveyance surface of the angled rack element (Para.88).
Regarding claim 15, Bretz further discloses wherein the first end of the angled rack element is configured to be secured to a first vertical rack component positioned along at least a portion of the first aisle, and the second end of the angled rack element is configured to be secured to a second vertical rack component positioned along at least a portion of the second aisle (Fig.3).
Regarding claim 16, Bretz further discloses wherein the loading position is defined at least in part by a downstream-most portion of the conveyance surface at least substantially adjacent the second end of the angled rack element (Fig.3).
Regarding claim 17, Bretz further discloses wherein the angled rack element defines an angled portion and a landing portion, wherein the pitch angle of the angled rack element is defined by the angled portion, and wherein the landing portion is arranged at a downstream position relative to the angled portion (Fig.3).
Regarding claim 18, Bretz further discloses wherein the landing portion is defined by an at least substantially horizontal surface configured to receive the one or more objects moving along the unidirectional transportation path from the angled portion (Fig.3).
Regarding claim 19, Bretz further discloses wherein the first end of the angled rack element is defined by the angled portion and the second end of the angled rack element is defined by the landing portion (Fig.3).
Regarding claim 20, Bretz further discloses wherein the loading position defined by the angled rack element is defined by the at least substantially horizontal surface of the landing portion, such that a first object of the one or more objects being positioned at the loading positioned defined atop the landing portion is accessible to the second shuttle via the second aisle (Fig.3).
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 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.
Claims 9-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bretz (US Pub App 2018/0178979) in view of Lindbo et al (US Pub App 2021/0032026).
Regarding claim 9, Bretz does not further specifically disclose wherein the pitch angle is at least approximately between 2 degrees and 15 degrees.
Lindbo teaches a system and method for picking items wherein storage bins are at an angle relative to the horizontal of 5 degrees (Fig.8b, Para.107).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified Bretz in view of Lindbo since this would be an optimum value for the pitch angle. This additional limitation is obvious as no more than the discovery of an optimum range or value, since it has been held that discovering an optimum range or value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See, MPEP 2144.05. Furthermore, using a pitch angle of between 2 degrees and 15 degrees would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art based on factors such as size of space, size of load, ease of use, etc.
Regarding claim 10, Bretz does not further specifically disclose wherein the pitch angle is at least approximately between 3 degrees and 7 degrees.
Lindbo teaches a system and method for picking items wherein storage bins are at an angle relative to the horizontal of 5 degrees (Fig.8b, Para.107).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified Bretz in view of Lindbo since this would be an optimum value for the pitch angle. This additional limitation is obvious as no more than the discovery of an optimum range or value, since it has been held that discovering an optimum range or value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See, MPEP 2144.05. Furthermore, using a pitch angle of between 3 degrees and 7 degrees would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art based on factors such as size of space, size of load, ease of use, etc.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Garriott, Yamashita, O’hern, Fosnight, Gorman and Abou-Chakra further disclose elements of an automated storage and retrieval system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY K ROMANO whose telephone number is (571)272-9318. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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 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.
/SAUL RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3652
/ASHLEY K ROMANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3652