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 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.
Claim(s) 1-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hansl (US 2003/0185656 A1), a.k.a., “Hansl ‘656”.
Regarding Claim 1, Hansl ‘656 discloses
an autonomous guided autonomous transport vehicle, i.e., rack serving unit (1) as illustrated in figure 1 and as mentioned at paragraph 55,
comprising:
a frame, i.e., load bearing support (26), base frame (27) and support frame (29), as illustrated in figures 3-5 and as mentioned in paragraphs 55 and 59, forming a payload area having a payload bay with a
pickface support plane, i.e, loading platform (10) and conveyor plane (22), as illustrated in figures 1 and 2 and as mentioned at paragraph 57, for example;
at least one upright mast member (11) as illustrated in figures 1 and 2 and as mentioned at paragraph 55, mounted upright to the frame (26, 27, 29),
where the at least one upright mast member (11) is mounted to and
forms, with the payload bay (10, 22), the payload area (22) of the frame (26, 27, 29); and
extension arms, i.e., telescoping arms (15), as illustrated in figure 2 and as mentioned at paragraph 55, movably mounted to the at least one upright mast
member (11) for movement in at least a vertical direction (9) as illustrated in figure 2 and as mentioned at paragraph 55, each
extension arm (15) being configured for
extension and retraction relative to the frame (26, 27, 29) along an
extension axis, i.e., direction of mast (13), as illustrated in figure 4, to effect transfer of at least one pickface, i.e,. interpreted as storage units (4), as illustrated in figures 1 and 2,
to and from the payload area (22), and
wherein the payload area (22) has a payload justification
traverse member, i.e., bearing slide (33) as illustrated in figures 3 and 10, and as mentioned at paragraph 63, movable relative to the payload area (22) of the
frame (26, 27, 29), in at least one direction that crosses the extension
axis (13), noting the direction of movement (42) in figure 3 as well as the directional arrows in figure 10.
Regarding Claim 2, Hansl ‘656 discloses
wherein the at least one direction (42) is one or more of the
vertical direction and a horizontal direction, noting figure 3 shows movement in the horizontal direction, i.e., up or down direction of figure 3, noting the left or right of figure 3 represents the vertical direction relative to the extension axis (13) and the longitudinal line of symmetry (53) as illustrated in figure 3 and as mentioned at paragraph 64.
Regarding Claim 3, Hansl ‘656 discloses
further comprising a three degree of freedom drive, as mentioned at abstract and as mentioned at paragraph 55, noting drive mechanism (12) that drives the displacement of mast (11) vertically in the vertical direction (9) as illustrated in figures 1 and 2, displacement of support frame (29) via endless drive element (36) as illustrated in fig. 3, and drive (44) that drives the telescopic arms (15) in the direction of double arrow (42), as mentioned at paragraph 63 and as illustrated in figures 3 and 5, connected to the extension arms (15) to effect the traversal of the payload
justification traverse member (33) and the extension and retraction
of the extension arms (15).
Regarding Claim 4, Hansl ‘656 discloses
wherein a distance between the payload justification traverse
member (33) and at least one extension arm (15) is a variable distance
such that the payload justification traverse member (33) has a
variable location relative to extension and retraction of the at
least one extension arm (15), noting that the drive motor (39) drives the extension arms to telescope/extend in direction of bidirectional arrow (13), thus changing the distance between extension arm (15) and the traverse member (33), as illustrated in figures 1-3, 7 and 8, for example.
Regarding Claim 5, Hansl ‘656 discloses
wherein traversal of the payload justification traverse
member (33) is in a plane substantially parallel with a pickface
support plane of the payload area (22), as illustrated in figures 2 and 3, to effect a full payload area justification of the at least one pickface (4) independent of a size of the at least one pickface (4).
Regarding Claim 6, Hansl ‘656 discloses
wherein the upright mast member (11) is arranged so that the
extension arms (15) are raised and lowered, along a lift axis, i.e., in the direction of bidirectional arrow (9), relative to the payload area, i.e., conveyor plane (22) as well as loading platform (10), of the frame (26, 27, 29).
Regarding Claim 7, Hansl ‘656 discloses
wherein the upright mast member (11) is arranged so that the
extension axis of the extension arms (15) is raised and lowered along
the lift axis (9) relative to the payload area (10, 22) of the frame (26, 27, 29).
Regarding Claim 8, Hansl ‘656 discloses
wherein the extension axis (13) is raised and lowered along the
lift axis (9) so that extension and retraction of the extension arms (15)
is within store shelves, i.e., support surface (23) of rack stage (17), as illustrated in figure 1, for example, above a pickface support plane of the
payload area (10, 22).
Regarding Claim 9, Hansl ‘656 discloses
wherein the store shelves (17, 23) are stacked above the pickface
support plane, represented by conveyor plane (22), for example.
Regarding Claim 10, see the rejection of Claim 1, above.
Regarding Claim 11, Hansl ‘656 discloses wherein the
at least one storage shelf (17, 23) includes more than one stacked
storage shelf (17) accessible from a common travel surface of the at
least one picking aisle (5), as illustrated in figure 1.
Regarding Claim 12, see the rejection of Claim 2, above.
Regarding Claim 13, see the rejection of Claim 3, above.
Regarding Claim 14, see the rejection of Claim 4, above.
Regarding Claim 15, see the rejection of Claim 6, above.
Regarding Claim 16, see the rejection of Claim 7, above.
Regarding Claim 17, see the rejection of Claim 8, above.
Regarding Claim 18, see the rejection of Claim 9, above.
Regarding Claim 19, see the rejection of Claim 1, above.
Regarding Claim 20, see the rejection of Claim 6, above.
Regarding Claim 21, see the rejection of Claim 7, above.
Regarding Claim 22, see the rejection of Claim 8, above.
Regarding Claim 23, see the rejection of Claim 9, above.
Regarding Claim 24, see the rejection of Claims 1 and 3, above.
Regarding Claim 25, see the rejection of Claim 6, above.
Regarding Claim 26, see the rejection of Claim 7, above.
Regarding Claim 27, see the rejection of Claim 8, above.
Regarding Claim 28, see the rejection of Claim 9, above.
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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansl (US 2006/0245862 A1), a.k.a., “Hansl”, in view of Hansl (US 2003/0185656 A1), a.k.a., “Hansl ‘656”.
Regarding Claim 1, Hansl teaches
an autonomous guided autonomous transport vehicle, i.e., shelf servicing device (6) as illustrated in figure 1 and as mentioned at paragraph 34,
comprising:
a frame forming a payload area having a payload bay with a
pickface support plane, i.e., lifting platform (8) with load receiving device (9), as illustrated in figures 2 and 4 and as mentioned at paragraph 40, for example;
at least one upright mast member mounted upright to the frame,
where the at least one upright mast member is mounted to and
forms, with the payload bay, the payload area of the frame; and
extension arms movably mounted to the at least one upright mast
member for movement in at least a vertical direction, each
extension arm being configured for
extension and retraction relative to the frame along an
extension axis to effect transfer of at least one pickface
to and from the payload area, and
wherein the payload area has a payload justification
traverse member movable relative to the payload area of the
frame, in at least one direction that crosses the extension
axis.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10-12 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansl (US 2006/0245862 A1), a.k.a., “Hansl”, in view of Hansl (US 2003/0185656 A1), a.k.a., “Hansl ‘656”.
Regarding Claim 1, Hansl teaches
a storage and retrieval system, i.e., shelf servicing device (6) and shelf storage system section (3a, 3b), as illustrated in figure 1 and as mentioned at paragraph 34, comprising: at least one autonomous transport vehicle, i.e., shelf servicing device (6) including a frame (8), as illustrated in figure 2 and as mentioned at paragraph 40, forming a payload area , i.e., lifting platform (8) and load receiving device (9), as illustrated in figure 4, and telescoping push arms (11a, 11b) movably mounted to the frame (8), each telescoping arm (11a, 11b) being configured for extension and retraction relative to the frame (8) along an extension axis, i.e., noting direction of extension (19a, 19b), as illustrated in figures 2 and 3 and as mentioned at paragraph 46, and traversal, relative to the frame (8), in at least one direction that is along to the extension axis (19a, 19b); at least one picking aisle (2) configured to allow travel of the at least one autonomous transport vehicle (6) through the at least one picking aisle (2), as illustrated in figure 1, for example; and at least one storage shelf, i.e., shelf storage sections (3a, 3b), as mentioned at paragraph 34, located adjacent the at least one picking aisle (2), where extension and retraction of the telescoping arms (11a, 11b) effects transfer of at least one pickface, i.e., load/auxiliary loading means (12), as illustrated in figures 1-8, between the at least one storage shelf (3a, 3b), and the payload area (8, 9).
Regarding Claim 1, Hansl does not expressly teach each telescoping arm being configured for extension and retraction relative to the frame along an extension axis, and traversal, relative to the frame, in at least one direction that is angled to the extension axis.
Regarding Claim 1, Hansl does not expressly teach, but Hansl ‘656 teaches each telescoping arm(s) (15), as illustrated in figure 13 and as mentioned at paragraphs 55 and 90, being configured for extension and retraction relative to the frame , i.e., base frame (27), as mentioned at paragraphs 59 and 60, along an extension axis, i.e., noting the direction of extension denoted by double arrows (13), as illustrated in figures 9 and 13 and as mentioned at paragraph 62, and traversal, relative to the frame (27), in at least one direction, i.e., along pivot axis (112), as mentioned at paragraphs 90, 91, 94 and 98 and as illustrated in figure 13, that is angled to the extension axis (13).
Regarding Claim 1, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a tilting mechanism so that each telescoping arm being configured for extension and retraction relative to the frame along an extension axis, and traversal, relative to the frame, in at least one direction that is angled to the extension axis as taught by Hansl ‘656, on the frame of Hansl’s device for the purpose of increasing utility to the user through accessing payloads situated angularly with respect to the frame, such as Hansl’656’s inclined shelving (111) as well as horizontal shelving (17) as shown and taught at figure 13, for example.
Regarding Claim 2, Hansl teaches
wherein the at least one storage shelf (3a, 3b) includes more than one stacked storage shelf, i.e., a shelf storage facility as mentioned at paragraph 2, first sentence, and noting that shelf storage sections (3a, 3b) are implied to be sections with stacked storage shelves since paragraph 34, third sentence states “[t]he shelf-servicing device 6 has a vertical mast 7, on which the raisable and lowerable lifting platform 8 is guided”, accessible from a common travel surface of the at least one picking aisle (2), as illustrated in figure 1.
Regarding Claim 3, Hansl ‘656 teaches
wherein the at least one direction (112) is one or more of a vertical and horizontal direction, noting that the pivot axis (112), which is arced in shape, has both vertical and horizontal components, as illustrated in figure 13.
Regarding Claim 4, Hansl ‘656 teaches
wherein the at least one autonomous transport vehicle, i.e., rack unit (1), includes a three degree of freedom drive, i.e., drive motors (39, 44) which drive the extension of the distance between the arms (25, 42) (a first degree of freedom) and the movement of drivers (62a, 62b) (a second degree of freedom), as illustrated in figure 3, and as mentioned at paragraph 64, and extension arm motors (55, 56) (third degree of freedom) as illustrated in figure 4 and as mentioned at paragraph 65, noting that all three motors are part of the three degree of freedom drive, connected to the telescoping arms (15) to effect the traversal of the telescoping arms (15) and the extension and retraction of the telescoping arms (15).
Regarding Claim 5, Hansl ‘656 teaches
wherein a distance (25, 42) between telescoping arms (15) is a variable distance such that each telescoping arm (15) has a variable location of extension and retraction, as illustrated in figures 3 and 4 and as mentioned at paragraph 64, as follows.
[0064] The adjusting mechanism 43 applies a synchronously transmitted displacement force to two displaceable bearing slides 33 arranged in the longitudinal peripheral region of the guide system via the rod linkages 46, 51 and lever arms 48, 49, for which purpose the two flange plates 45 are articulatingly joined to one another via a push rod 52. In this particular embodiment, only a single drive 44 is used for synchronously displacing the telescopic arms 15--in the direction of double arrow 42. The linkage points for the first end of the rod linkages 46, 51 and push rod 52 are preferably offset from one another by an angle of 120.degree.. A rotating motion of the two flange plates 45 reciprocally linked via the push rod by means of a single drive 44 causes the two lever arms 48 to pivot about the joints 47 and the two lever arms 49 co-operating with the distal end region of the bearing slide 33 of the two telescopic arms 15 are displaced towards one another or apart from one another relative to a plane of longitudinal symmetry 53. As a result, a slight width or the distance 25 between the telescopic arms 15 can be reduced by the maximum centring motion 41 of the two telescopic arms 15. The requisite centring motion 41 can be fixed by means of the length-adjustable or variable rod linkages 46, 51 and is preferably between 5 mm and 40 mm, in particular between 10 mm and 30 mm, for example 20 mm. The primary advantage of this embodiment is that when transferring storage units 4 from the rack stage 17 onto the loading platform 10, for example, preferably before sliding the two telescopic arms 15 out towards the storage unit 4, the telescopic arms 15 are moved to their maximum distance 25 apart from one another so that even if there are variations in the dimensions of the storage units 4, e.g. due to deformation thereof, the storage unit 4 can be prevented from colliding with the retractable unit 14. Another option would be to connect he bearing slide 33 to the base frame 27 of the loading platform 10 to prevent it from being displaced and dispose the guide rails 34, 35 forming the guiding system transversely to the longitudinal direction of the elevation and lateral guide tracks 77, 78 of the support frame 29, between the bearing slide 33 and the support frame 29.
Emphasis provided.
Regarding Claim 10, Hansl teaches
wherein traversal of each telescoping arm assembly (11a, 11b) is in a plane substantially parallel with a fixed pickface support plane (3b) of the payload area, i.e., lifting platform (8) and load receiving device (9), as illustrated in figure 4, to effect a full payload area justification of the at least one pickface (12) independent of a size of the at least one pickface so that each payload seating position defined by the payload area (8, 9) in its entirety is within the full payload area justification, as illustrated in figures 2-8, noting that the term “justification” is construed as meaning the movement of an item into position to make even.
Regarding Claim 11, see rejection of Claim 1, above.
Regarding Claim 12, Hansl ‘656 teaches rotatable fingers (59a, 59b, 62a, 62b, 63a, 63b), as illustrated in figures 3 and 14-19 wherein transferring the pickface into the payload area (22, 60, 61) includes pulling the pickface (4) into the payload area with rotatable fingers (59a, 59b, 62a, 62b, 63a, 63b) mounted to the telescoping arms (15), as illustrated in figures 2-4 and 14-19.
Regarding Claim 17, see the rejection of Claim 1, above.
Regarding Claim 18, see the rejection of Claim 4, above.
Regarding Claim 19, see the rejection of Claim 5, above.
Regarding Claim 20, see the rejection of Claim 10, above.
Conclusion
Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner should there be any questions about this rejection or in an endeavor to explore potential amendments or potential allowable subject matter.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
Bang ‘329 is cited as teaching an example of a system with movement in the x and y direction of stage (40) as well as movement of head units (50) in the x, y and z axis along with a fine adjustment motor on the z-axis for finely adjusting the height of head unit (50), as mentioned at paragraph 36 and as illustrated in figures 1 and 2.
Taylor ‘309 is cited as teaching another example of a structure with several movement axes layered with each other for course and fine adjustment, noting the freedom of motion in directions (a, b, c, a’, b’, c’, e, f, g) as illustrated in figure 1a, as well as directions (a’, b’, c’, e’, f’, g’, e, f, g, h) in figure 4, for example.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY ALAN SHAPIRO whose telephone number is (571)272-6943. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday generally between 8:30AM and 6:30PM.
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, Anita Y Coupe can be reached on 571-270-3614. 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.
/JEFFREY A SHAPIRO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
January 8, 2026