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 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, 8-9, 11, 18-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by De Jong (US Pub App 2018/0186610).
Regarding claim 1, De Jong discloses a carriage lift assembly for an automated storage and retrieval system (intended use), the carriage lift assembly defining a horizontal direction and a vertical direction (Para.56), the carriage lift assembly comprising:
a mast member (16);
a carriage (18) comprising a plurality of wheels (48, 50) that are positioned on the mast member, wherein the carriage is configured to move along the mast member (Para.59, Fig.3); and
a lockout device (38) that is removably coupled to the mast member (Para.59, Fig.3), the lockout device comprising a moveable member that is configured to move from a first position to a second position (Para.62),
wherein when the moveable member of the lockout device is in the first position (Para.62), at least a portion of the moveable member is at a location that is vertically between at least two of the plurality of wheels of the carriage (Fig.3), and
wherein when the moveable member of the lockout device is in the second position (Para.62), the moveable member is positioned away from the location that is vertically between the at least two of the plurality of wheels of the carriage (Para.62).
Regarding claim 11, De Jong discloses a lockout device (38) for a carriage lift assembly (4) for an automated storage and retrieval system (Para.56) (intended use), the lockout device being configured to be removably coupled to a mast member (16) of the carriage lift assembly, the lockout device comprising:
a moveable member (38) that is configured to move from a first position to a second position,
wherein when the moveable member is in the first position, the moveable member of the lockout device is configured to have at least a portion of the moveable member at a location that is vertically between at least two wheels of a carriage of the carriage lift assembly (Para.58, Fig.3), and
wherein when the moveable member is in the second position, the moveable member of the lockout device is configured to be positioned away from the location that is vertically between the at least two wheels of the carriage of the carriage lift assembly (Para.58-62).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, De Jong further discloses the moveable member is configured to translate from the first position to the second position (Para.62).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, De Jong further discloses when the moveable member is in the first position, the carriage is prevented from moving past the lockout device, and wherein when the moveable member is in the second position, the carriage is allowed to move past the lockout device (Para.58-62).
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 2-6 and 12-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Jong (US Pub App 2018/0186610) in view of Lai (US 10,130,194).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, De Jong further discloses the lockout device comprises a plate (Fig.3)
De Jong does not further specifically disclose wherein at least a portion of the plate has a dovetail shape.
Lai teaches a holder body with a track slot and dovetail grove corresponding to a plate (41) with a dovetail shape (Fig.7, Col.2, lines 47+).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified De Jong in view of Lai to have at least a portion of the plate have a dovetail shape in order to increase quality and create a more durable construction and further since a change in shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, De Jong further teaches the mast member comprises a slot, wherein a shape of the slot of the mast member corresponds to the dovetail shape of the plate of the lockout device (Lai, Fig.7, Col.2, lines 47+).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, De Jong further discloses the dovetail shape of the plate extends a complete length of the plate (Lai, Fig.7, Col.2, lines 47+).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, De Jong further discloses the plate of the lockout device is configured to slide along the slot of the mast member (Lai, Fig.7, Col.2, lines 47+).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, De Jong does not further specifically disclose the mast member comprises a slot that extends in the vertical direction and the lockout device comprises a plate that extends in the vertical direction, and wherein the plate of the lockout device is positioned within the slot of the mast member.
Lai teaches a holder body with a track slot and dovetail grove corresponding to a plate (41) with a dovetail shape (Fig.7, Col.2, lines 47+).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified De Jong in view of Lai to the mast member comprise a slot that extends in the vertical direction and the lockout device comprise a plate that extends in the vertical direction, and wherein the plate of the lockout device is positioned within the slot of the mast member in order to increase quality and create a more durable construction.
Claims 7 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Jong (US Pub App 2018/0186610).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, De Jong further discloses the moveable member comprises two horizontal portions that are connected by a vertical portion (Figs.3-4).
De Jong does not further specifically disclose wherein the vertical portion has a length of at least three inches and up to eight inches.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the vertical portion of the moveable member have a length of at least three inches and up to eight inches since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art {please see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)}. It has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claims 10 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Jong (US Pub App 2018/0186610) in view of Weiss (US Pub App 2020/0399106).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, De Jong does not further specifically disclose the lockout device is removably coupled to the mast member with at least one fastener.
Weiss teaches a lift truck including a mast wherein a plate 127 is coupled to the back edge 131 of the vertical mast carriage support 124 with fasteners 133 (Para.55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified De Jong in view of Weiss to removably couple the lockout device to the mast member with at least one fastener in order to ease installation and removal and since fasteners are a known way to connect two elements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 6/26/2026, with respect to the 112 rejections, together with the amendment filed 6/26/2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed 6/26/2026 with respect to the 102 and 103 rejection of the claims have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant's argument contending that the previously made rejection does not disclose wherein when the moveable member of the lockout device is in the first position, at least a portion of the moveable member is at a location that is vertically between at least two of the plurality of wheels of the carriage, and wherein when the moveable member of the lockout device is in the second position, the moveable member is positioned away from the location that is vertically between the at least two of the plurality of wheels of the carriage inasmuch as Applicant had claimed this feature, it is disclosed by De Jong. And as such, any arguments pertaining to this element are considered nonpersuasive. As can best be seen in paragraph 62 and figure 3 of the disclosure, De Jong discloses a rotating lock actuator 36 block or pawl 38 that will engage or disengage from locking rail 34 when rotated. An engaged or locked position is shown in figures 3 and 4, in which the rotating lock actuator including the block or pawl and a user engageable handle is vertically between the 2 wheels of the assembly. In a second position (not shown) wherein rotating lock actuator is rotated, as in paragraph 63, the rotating lock actuator would be positioned away from the locked location, as claimed by Applicant.
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 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 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.
/ASHLEY K ROMANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3652
/MARK C HAGEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights