DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
2. Claims 1-18 are pending in this application.
Drawings
3. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “roller frame” of claims 1 and 9 and the “input/output drawer” of claims 7 and 15 must be shown or the feature canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
(Note: the instant specification, while disclosing roller frames in the Summary section, and thus avoiding an objection to the specification due to lack of antecedent basis, fails to disclose or identify any roller frames in the Detailed Description section that relates claimed structures to figures via reference characters.)
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
4. The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01.
Claim Interpretation
5. Claims 1-2, 4, 7-12, 15, and 18 recite the term “drawer”, which is not formally defined in the instant specification. Applicant’s drawers 102A-B in various figures (particularly fig. 2A) do not appear to be drawers in the most common sense of the word, i.e. horizontally sliding open-topped storage containers such as are common in household furniture and various industrial storage systems. Rather, applicant’s drawers appear to be openable or closeable doors, gates, flaps, or covers for the base of applicant’s motorized drive roller assembly. However, we cannot preclude conventional drawers of the commonly understood variety from consideration as no invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is evident in the claims. As such, in this office action, any conventional drawer as well as any mechanical device that can be in an open or a closed state and which, when open, allows external access to structures on a far side of the device will be considered a “drawer” according to applicant’s claims.
6. All claims recite the term “MDR assembly” (motorized drive roller assembly). We understand the standard term of art MDR to refer specifically to a roller with an internal motor, as opposed, for example, to a belt-driven roller. That said, most externally driven rollers can be replaced by MDRs and vice versa to perform similar functions.
Examiner’s Note
7. The examiner would welcome an interview to clarify any of the various rejections seen below in order to expedite prosecution of the instant application.
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.
8. Claims 7, 15, and 9-17 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. Both claims recite the term, “input/output drawers”.
Regarding claims 7 and 15, the examiner does not know what an “input/output drawer” is. This does not appear to be a standard term in the art. The instant specification and figures provide no illumination of the term, which is only mentioned in [0011] and [0019] without explanation. Our inability to understand the term constitutes a point of indefiniteness in the claims. We note that the “electrical drawers” of the claims are not only generally understood terms of art, but are explicitly explained in applicant’s specification in [0039]. For purposes of examination on the merits in this office action, we consider the limitations of these claims to only specify “electrical drawers” and not the indefinite “input/output drawers”.
Regarding claims 9-17, claim 9 recites, “wherein the one or more drawers are fixedly attached to the frame”. In claim 9, “a frame” is a different structure from “a roller frame” also introduced in the same claim. Applicant’s drawings, however, only depict its drawers 102A-B attached to what appears to be a roller frame (presumably MDR assembly 100A-B) and not to the overall frame 12. This apparent contradiction amounts to a point of indefiniteness in the claim, because it is unclear what drawers may be attached to what frame. We may suspect that as in independent claim 1 wherein the drawers are attached to the roller frame, that “the frame” of claim 9 to which the drawers are attached is really meant to refer to “the roller frame” which is after all a sort of frame, but we cannot definitely establish this mapping (in which case this rejection would only have been an objection for informality). This rejection is therefore intended to allow applicant either to correct their claim language on amendment or to traverse by reasserting the attachment of the drawers to the general frame of their system rather than to the roller frame. Claims 10-17 inherit the indefiniteness of parent claim 9. For purposes of examination on the merits in the instant office action, we will suppose that attachment either to the frame or the roller frame is acceptable.
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.
9. Claims 1, 6-7, 9, 14-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ambrosi, Thomas, US 2020/0039743 (hereinafter Ambrosi) in view of Lundahl, et al., US 2018/0257110 (hereinafter Lundahl).
10. Regarding claim 1,
Ambrosi discloses:
A motorized drive roller assembly comprising: a roller frame (40: figs. 13);Ambrosi discloses its rollers are motorized in [0071]-[0073].
one or more drawers (32, 37: fig. 7) configured to move between an open position and a closed position, wherein the one or more drawers are fixedly attached to the roller frame;Per Claim Interpretation above, the claimed drawer is any named drawer or any device that can open and close to give access to another side of the device. Ambrosi calls its units 32 drawers or shelves. These structures are capable of both linear and lateral movement and in [0055] are disclosed to be capable of closing (and therefore also opening). Per [0074], the roller frame 40 may be engaged with the drawer 32, and so the drawer may be fixedly attached to the roller frame. Ambrosi also discloses an electrical panel 37 attached to a different frame that gives access to electrical control components and lift rollers in an MDR assembly and that can also be considered a drawer fixedly attached to a roller frame.
and a plurality of rollers (rollers 36’: fig. 13) disposed on or within the roller frame.
However, Ambrosi does not disclose:
one or more sensing devices;Ambrosi does not disclose sensors.
Lundahl, an invention in the field of package sorting, teaches:
one or more sensing devices (3600: fig. 8);Lundahl teaches various sensors including photoelectric zone sensors 3600 in [0064] that are part of its sorting system which like that of Ambrosi comprises MDR rollers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Zhou with one or more sensing devices, as taught by Lundahl, because modern storage and conveyance systems almost always comprise sensors that determine correct or abnormal operation and conditions of the system. Detecting abnormalities provides advantageous benefits that would be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
11. Regarding claim 6,
Ambrosi in view of Lundahl teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the plurality of rollers comprises one or more active drive rollers and one or more passive idler rollers, and wherein the one or more active drive rollers are configured to drive the one or more passive rollers.Lundahl teaches in [0012] that some of its rollers may be passive rollers that move in response to a conveyor belt, and in [0019] teaches MDRs that drive its conveyor system. As the MDRs drive the belt and the belt drives the passive rollers, the MDRs drive the passive rollers.
12. Regarding claim 7,
Ambrosi in view of Lundahl teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the one or more drawers comprise one or more electrical (37: fig. 7) or input/output drawersAmbrosi discloses in fig. 7 an electrical panel 37 that gives access to electrical components such as the lift rollers 36 of fig. 31.
13. Regarding claim 9,
Ambrosi discloses:
A system comprising: a frame (70, 80, 89: figs. 6-8);
one or more MDR assemblies (33: fig. 7) disposed on or within the frame,
wherein the one or more MDR assemblies comprise: a roller frame (40: fig. 13);
one or more drawers configured to move between an open position and a closed position, wherein the one or more drawers are fixedly attached to the frame;Per Claim Interpretation above, the claimed drawer is any named drawer or any device that can open and close to give access to another side of the device. Ambrosi calls its units 32 drawers or shelves. These structures are capable of both linear and lateral movement and in [0055] are disclosed to be capable of closing (and therefore also opening). Per the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, we interpret “the frame” in this office action as including “the roller frame”. Per [0074], the roller frame 40 may be engaged with the drawer 32, and so the drawer may be fixedly attached to the roller frame. Ambrosi also discloses an electrical panel 37 attached to a different frame that gives access to electrical control components and lift rollers in the MDR assembly and that can also be considered a drawer fixedly attached to a roller frame.
a plurality of rollers (rollers 36’: fig. 13) disposed on or within the frame;
and a lift mechanism (33: fig. 7) operably engaged to the one or more MDR assemblies and configured to adjust the height of the one or more MDR assemblies within the frame.
However, Ambrosi does not disclose:
one or more sensing devices fixedly attached to at least one of the one or more drawers;Ambrosi does not disclose sensors.
Lundahl, an invention in the field of package sorting, teaches:
one or more sensing devices (3600: fig. 8) fixedly attached to at least one of the one or more drawers; Lundahl teaches various sensors including photoelectric zone sensors 3600 in [0064] that are part of its sorting system which like that of Ambrosi comprises MDR rollers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Zhou with one or more sensing devices fixedly attached to at least one of the one or more drawers, as taught by Lundahl, because modern storage and conveyance systems almost always comprise sensors that determine correct or abnormal operation and conditions of the system. Detecting abnormalities provides advantageous benefits that would be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
14. Regarding claim 14,
Ambrosi in view of Lundahl teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the plurality of rollers comprises one or more active drive rollers and one or more passive idler rollers, and wherein the one or more active drive rollers are configured to drive the one or more passive rollers.Lundahl teaches in [0012] that some of its rollers may be passive rollers that move in response to a conveyor belt, and in [0019] teaches MDRs that drive its conveyor system. As the MDRs drive the belt and the belt drives the passive rollers, the MDRs drive the passive rollers.
15. Regarding claim 15,
Ambrosi in view of Lundahl teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the one or more drawers comprise one or more electrical (37: fig. 7) or input/output drawersAmbrosi discloses in fig. 7 an electrical panel 37 that gives access to electrical components such as the lift rollers 36 of fig. 31.
Regarding claim 17,
Ambrosi in view of Lundahl teaches the limitations of claim 9 and also:
wherein the one or more MDR assemblies comprise a first MDR assembly (33: fig. 7) and a second MDR assembly (36: fig. 7), and wherein the first MDR assembly and the second MDR assembly are separated by a distance D within the frame.All discrete objects are necessarily separated from one another by some distance. Since applicant does not specify a particular distance or range of distances that may constitute its “D”, Ambrosi in disclosing a visual separation of discrete assemblies in its fig. 7 is not obliged to specify a distance either.
16. Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ambrosi in view of Lundahl and further in view of Byl, et al., US 2021/0347060 (hereinafter Byl).
17. Regarding claim 2,
Ambrosi in view of Lundahl teaches the limitations of claim 1 but not all aspects of:
wherein the one or more sensing devices comprises one or more photoeye sensors configured to detect a potential collision and whether the one or more drawers are in the open position or the closed position.While Lundahl teaches photoelectric (“photoeye”) sensors, it does not teach their use in determining drawer open or closed status or in avoiding collision.
Byl, an invention in the field of robotic storage, teaches the missing aspects of limitation:
wherein the one or more sensing devices comprises one or more photoeye sensors configured to detect a potential collision and whether the one or more drawers are in the open position or the closed position.Byl teaches the use of sensors such as light curtains in [0073] to detect drawer open and closed status and to avoid collision. Light curtains comprise photoelectric or “photoeye” sensors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Ambrosi and Lundahl, wherein the one or more sensing devices comprises one or more photoeye sensors configured to detect a potential collision and whether the one or more drawers are in the open position or the closed position, as taught by Byl, because collision avoidance is a universal goal for robotic and other automated systems, and because such systems with drawers may assume different geometries and hence different collision profiles when their drawers are open or closed.
18. Regarding claim 10,
Ambrosi in view of Lundahl teaches the limitations of claim 9 but not all aspects of:
wherein the one or more sensing devices comprises a photoeye sensor configured to detect a potential collision and whether the one or more drawers are in the open position or the closed position.While Lundahl teaches photoelectric (“photoeye”) sensors, it does not teach their use in determining drawer open or closed status or in avoiding collision.
Byl, an invention in the field of robotic storage, teaches the missing aspects of limitation:
wherein the one or more sensing devices comprises a photoeye sensor configured to detect a potential collision and whether the one or more drawers are in the open position or the closed position.Byl teaches the use of sensors such as light curtains in [0073] to detect drawer open and closed status and to avoid collision. Light curtains comprise photoelectric or “photoeye” sensors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Ambrosi and Lundahl, wherein the one or more sensing devices comprises a photoeye sensor configured to detect a potential collision and whether the one or more drawers are in the open position or the closed position, as taught by Byl, because collision avoidance is a universal goal for robotic and other automated systems, and because such systems with drawers may assume different geometries and hence different collision profiles when their drawers are open or closed.
19. Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ambrosi in view of Lundahl and Byl and further in view of Kim, et al., US 2006/0196198 (hereinafter Kim).
20. Regarding claim 3,
Ambrosi in view of Lundahl and Byl teaches the limitations of claim 2 but not all aspects of:
wherein the MDR is operably engaged with a lift mechanism configured to raise or lower the MDR to one or more elevations, and wherein the one or more sensing devices are configured to prevent the lift mechanism from raising or lowering the MDR when the one or more drawers are in the open position.While Byl teaches collision avoidance using “photoeye” sensors to detect open and closed drawer positions, it does not teach this in the context of preventing a lift from operating.
Kim, an invention in the field of refrigeration control, teaches the missing aspects of limitation:
wherein the MDR is operably engaged with a lift mechanism configured to raise or lower the MDR to one or more elevations, and wherein the one or more sensing devices are configured to prevent the lift mechanism from raising or lowering the MDR when the one or more drawers are in the open position.Kim teaches in [0065] that a lifting device should not operate when a drawer is detected to be open in order to avoid a collision. In combination with Ambrosi, Lundahl, and Byl, we do not modify any of the structures of these references, but rather make use of Kim’s method in the context of the combined structures of the other references.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Ambrosi, Lundahl, and Byl, wherein the MDR is operably engaged with a lift mechanism configured to raise or lower the MDR to one or more elevations, and wherein the one or more sensing devices are configured to prevent the lift mechanism from raising or lowering the MDR when the one or more drawers are in the open position, as taught by Kim, because given the situational context of a lifting device that can carry a structure whose open drawer may cause a collision, Kim’s method of preventing the lifting device from operating while the drawer is open avoids the collision. Avoiding damage consequent to a collision is an advantageous benefit that would be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
21. Regarding claim 11,
Ambrosi in view of Lundahl and Byl teaches the limitations of claim 10 but not all aspects of:
wherein the one or more MDR assemblies are operably engaged with a lift mechanism configured to raise or lower the one or more MDR assemblies to one or more elevations, and wherein the one or more sensing devices is configured to prevent the lift mechanism from raising or lowering the one or more MDR assemblies when the one or more drawers are in the open position.While Byl teaches collision avoidance using “photoeye” sensors to detect open and closed drawer positions, it does not teach this in the context of preventing a lift from operating.
Kim, an invention in the field of refrigeration control, teaches the missing aspects of limitation:
wherein the one or more MDR assemblies are operably engaged with a lift mechanism configured to raise or lower the one or more MDR assemblies to one or more elevations, and wherein the one or more sensing devices is configured to prevent the lift mechanism from raising or lowering the one or more MDR assemblies when the one or more drawers are in the open position.Kim teaches in [0065] that a lifting device should not operate when a drawer is detected to be open in order to avoid a collision. In combination with Ambrosi, Lundahl, and Byl, we do not modify any of the structures of these references, but rather make use of Kim’s method in the context of the combined structures of the other references.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Ambrosi, Lundahl, and Byl, wherein the one or more MDR assemblies are operably engaged with a lift mechanism configured to raise or lower the one or more MDR assemblies to one or more elevations, and wherein the one or more sensing devices is configured to prevent the lift mechanism from raising or lowering the one or more MDR assemblies when the one or more drawers are in the open position, as taught by Kim, because given the situational context of a lifting device that can carry a structure whose open drawer may cause a collision, Kim’s method of preventing the lifting device from operating while the drawer is open avoids the collision. Avoiding damage consequent to a collision is an advantageous benefit that would be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
22. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ambrosi in view of Lundahl and further in view of Marsh, Julian. US 5,551,833 (hereinafter Marsh).
23. Regarding claim 16,
Ambrosi in view of Lundahl teaches the limitations of claim 9 but not all aspects of:
wherein the lift mechanism comprises one or more cables disposed on or within the frame and operably engaged with the one or more MDR assemblies.While Ambrosi discloses a lift that is operably engaged with one or more MDR assemblies, it does not disclose a cable used for the purpose.
Marsh, an invention in the field of pallet stacking, teaches:
wherein the lift mechanism comprises one or more cables (74: fig. 1) disposed on or within the frame (14: fig. 1) and operably engaged with the one or more MDR assemblies (42: fig. 1).Marsh teaches in C6/L18-47 and fig. 1 that a cable 74, part of a lift assembly, lifts a roller assembly 42. In this combination we rely on Marsh for its cable and lifting mechanism, and refer to Ambrosi and Lundahl for their MDRs and overall structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Ambrosi and Lundahl, wherein the lift mechanism comprises one or more cables disposed on or within the frame and operably engaged with the one or more MDR assemblies, as taught by Marsh, because cables are well-known and widespread components of lifting devices having been used for thousands of years for this purpose.
Allowable Subject Matter
24. Claims 4-5 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.
25. Claims 12-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection of parent claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
26. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding claims 4-5 and 12-13, while a variety of sensing methods are used in various arts to detect whether a drawer or other openable device is open or closed, and while “sensing brackets” are likewise used for myriad purposes in multiple arts, applicant’s particular method of detecting a sensing bracket only when a drawer is open in the context of the MDR assembly of claim 1 and the system including an MDR assembly of claim 9 was neither found, nor taught, nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant’s copending application US 2023/0008035 discloses many similar features to the instant application. US 5,374,326 discloses a roller frame with an access panel similar to applicant’s electrical drawer. US 5,784,676 discloses a roller frame disposed on a drawer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS whose telephone number is (703)756-1828. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0830-1700.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at (571) 270-5565. 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.
/ERNESTO A SUAREZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3655A
/L.R.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 3655