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.
In claims 7-9, the term “centering means” is interpreted bases on the description provided in the specification at the page 10, paragraph [0057].
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 13 be found allowable, claim 14 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claim 18 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.
Regarding claim 18, a limitation “the telescopic fork comprises two tines” is
already recited in claim 17 (the fork comprises a telescopic fork) which depends on claim 16 (the fork comprises two tines) and it is unclear how this further narrows the previous claims.
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) 1-2 and 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abou-Chakra (US 20200122925 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Abou-Chakra discloses a shuttle system (Abstract, lines 10-16), comprising a rack structure with a storage and retrieval level and at least one warehouse level for storing load carriers (Abstract, lines 1-10),
a vertical conveyor (Fig.3, element 8) for transporting load carriers between the levels of the rack structure (Fig. 3, shows that element 8 can transport load from one level to another level of rack structure),
at least one shuttle to travel in the levels of the rack structure (Fig. 1, element 5 is able to travel in the levels of the rack, paragraph [0034]),
at least one buffer location (Fig. 3, element 7, 9), which is situated in the storage and retrieval level directly next to the vertical conveyor (Fig. 3, element 8), the at least one buffer location is set up to temporarily receive a load carrier (Fig. 2 and 3, element Q and Q2), and the at least one buffer location comprises a transfer section on a storage side, on a pre-zone side, and on a vertical conveyor (Fig. 3, element 8) side for receiving and delivering the load carrier (See attached annotated Fig. 3),
wherein the at least one shuttle (Fig. 1, element 5) is further set up to transfer a load carrier to be retrieved to the buffer location (Fig. 1A, element 14*) and to take over a load carrier to be stored from the buffer location, wherein this takeover and handover is performed via the transfer section on the storage side (see attached annotated Fig. 1A),
wherein the buffer location (Fig. 1A, element 14*) is further set up to take over or hand over a load carrier also from or to a conveyor acting as an interface between the storage and retrieval level and a zone located outside the rack levels, wherein the takeover and handover is performed via the transfer section on the pre-zone side (see attached annotated Fig. 1A),
wherein the vertical conveyor (Fig. 3, element 8), is operable to transfer the load carrier from the buffer location (Fig. 3, element 7,9) to the vertical conveyor or take the load carrier over from the vertical conveyor, wherein the takeover and transfer is performed via the transfer section on the vertical conveyor side (See attached annotated Fig. 3),
wherein a direction along which the buffer location (Fig. 1A, element 14 & 14*) transfers the load carrier to or takes the load carrier over from the conveyor (paragraph [0024]) acting as an interface runs parallel to a direction along which the at least one shuttle (Fig. 1A, element 5) transfers the load carrier to or takes the load carrier over from the buffer location (See attached annotated Fig. 1A), and
wherein a direction along which the vertical conveyor (Fig. 3, element 8) transfers the load carrier to or takes the load carrier over from the buffer location (Fig. 3 & 8, element 7 & 9) runs orthogonally to the direction along which the conveyor acting as an interface transfers the load carrier to or takes the load carrier over from the buffer location (See attached annotated Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
909
942
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
854
983
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Abou-Chakra discloses all the limitations of claim 1. It also discloses wherein at least one further buffer location (Fig. 1A, element 14 & 14*) between the pre-zone-side transfer section and the conveyor acting as the interface (See attached annotated Fig. 1A, where it teaches a transfer section is acting as the interface between pre-zone and buffer location 14 or 14*).
Regrading claim 4, Abou-Chakra discloses all the limitations of claim 1. It also discloses two directly adjacent buffer locations (Fig. 8 elements 7 and 9) are assigned to the vertical conveyor (Fig. 8 elements 7 and 9).
Regrading claim 5, Abou-Chakra discloses all the limitations of claim 1. It also discloses at least one further buffer location adjoins the transfer section on the storage side (Paragraph [0119]).
Regrading claim 6, Abou-Chakra discloses all the limitations of claim 1. It also discloses the buffer locations (Paragraph [0119]) are formed by a continuous conveyer. (Paragraph [0024], lines 22-26).
Claim(s) 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
DE 202014100476 U1.
Regrading claim 10, DE ‘476 discloses, a method for handling a load carrier (Fig. 1, element 28), wherein a storing or retrieving of the load carrier is performed in or from a rack structure (Fig. 1, element 10), the method comprising: temporarily storing the load carrier (Fig. 1, element 28) on a buffer location (Fig. 1, elements Ü1 and Ü2), which at the same time serves as a transfer section to a vertical conveyor (Fig. 1, elements 24-1 and 24-2), or passing this buffer location (Fig. 1, elements Ü1 and Ü2) in order to store the load carrier (Fig. 1, element 28) in a storage (Fig. 1, elements 12-3 and 12-4) and retrieval (Fig. 1, elements 12-1 and 12-2) level or retrieve the load carrier from the storage and retrieval level.
Regrading claim 11, DE ‘476 discloses all the limitations of the claim 10.
It also discloses wherein a storing of the load carrier (Fig. 1, element 28) is performed in the rack structure (Fig. 1, element 10), wherein: a conveyor (Fig. 1, element 22) conveys the load carrier (Fig. 1, element 28) to the storage (Fig. 1, element 12-3 and 12-4) and retrieval level (Fig. 1, element 12-1 and 12-2), where the load carrier is conveyed to the buffer location (Fig. 1, element Ü1 and Ü2), if the load carrier (Fig. 1, element 28) is supposed to be stored in the storage (Fig. 1, element 12-3 and 12-4) and retrieval level (Fig. 1, element 12-1 and 12-2), the load carrier passes the buffer location (Fig. 1, element Ü1 and Ü2), and is taken over by a shuttle (Fig. 1, element 30), running in the storage and retrieval level, and if the load carrier (Fig. 1, element 28), is supposed to be stored in a warehouse level (Abstract: Plurality of level vertically one above another), the load carrier is taken over at the buffer location (Fig. 1, element Ü1 and Ü2)by the vertical conveyor (Fig. 1, element 24-1 and 24-2) and transported to the warehouse level (Abstract: Plurality of levels vertically one above another).
Regrading claim 12, DE ‘476 discloses all the limitations of the claim 10.
It also discloses wherein a retrieval of the load carrier (Fig. 1, element 28) from the rack structure (Fig. 1, element 10) is performed, wherein: the shuttle (Fig. 1, element 30) or the vertical conveyor (Fig. 1, element 24-1 and 24-2) conveys the load carrier (Fig. 1, element 28) to the buffer location (Fig. 1, element Ü1 and Ü2), and a conveyor (Fig. 1, element 22) takes over the load carrier (Fig. 1, element 28).
Regrading claim 13 and 14, DE ‘476 discloses all the limitations of the claim 10.
It also discloses the load carrier is temporarily stored on a further buffer location before being temporarily stored on the buffer location or passing the buffer location if the buffer location is occupied by another load carrier (Page 12, lines 23-50).
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, 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.
Claim(s) 3, 7, 16, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abou-Chakra (US 20200122925 A1) in view of Nobata et al (US 20210354964 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Abou-Chakra discloses all the limitations of claim 1. It also discloses vertical conveyor (FIG.3, element 8) but remains silent about vertical conveyor includes a fork operable to actively transport the load carrier from buffer location to vertical conveyor and back.
Nobata et al. teaches vertical conveyor (Fig. 1, element 10) includes a fork (Fig. 1, element 93) operable to actively transport the load carrier from buffet location to vertical conveyor and back.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the applicant’s claim to modify Abou-chakra to include vertical conveyor includes a fork operable in view of Nobata et al. in order to transfer the load carrier from one place to other.
Regrading claim 7, Abou-Chakra discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
It fails to disclose at least one at least one centering means is arranged to center a load carrier after it has been delivered by the conveyor acting as an interface and before it has been taken over by the at least one shuttle or by the vertical conveyor.
Nobata et al. teaches at least one at least one centering means (Fig. 1 element 13A) is arranged to center a load carrier after it has been delivered by the conveyor (Fig. 1, element 11) acting as an interface and before it has been taken over by the at least one shuttle or by the vertical conveyor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the applicant’s claim to modify Abou-chakra by incorporating one at least one centering means is arranged to center a load carrier after it has been delivered by the conveyor acting as an interface and before it has been taken over by the at least one shuttle or by the vertical conveyor in view of Nobata et el. in order to improve the stability of the load carrier before shuttle or vertical conveyor pick it up.
Regarding claim 16, Abou chakra discloses a shuttle system.
It fails to disclose all limitations of claim 3 and the fork comprises two tines.
Nobata et al. teaches the fork (Fig. 1 element 93) comprises two tines (Fig. 1 element 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the applicant’s claim to modify Abou-chakra by incorporating the fork comprises two tines in view of Nobata et al. to achieve better lifting of the pallets which are designed to be lifted from underneath.
Regrading claim 17, Abou-Chakra fails to disclose all the limitations of the claim 16. It also fails to disclose the fork comprises a telescopic fork.
Nobata et al. teaches the fork comprises a telescopic fork (Fig. 4, element 40, Fig. 7A to Fig. 8C shows telescopic movement of fork).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the applicant’s claim to modify Abou-chakra by incorporating the fork comprises a telescopic fork in view of Nobata et al. in order to allow the vertical conveyor to reach, transfer and accurately position loads across the multiple level of the facility.
Regrading claim 18, Nobata et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 17. It also teaches the telescopic fork (Fig. 4, element 40, Fig. 7A to Fig. 8C shows telescopic movement of fork) comprises two tines (Fig. 1, element 32; See rejection of claim 16 and 17).
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abou-Chakra (US 20200122925 A1) in view of DE 102008022323 A1.
Regrading claim 8, Abou-Chakra discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
DE ‘323 teaches at least one transfer section (Fig. 3 element 68) is arranged to temporarily take over a load carrier, and the transfer section further comprises at least one centering means (Fig. 6B, elements 38 and 38’ and 39 and 39’), which is arranged to center a load carrier when the load carrier is set down on the transfer section by the at least one shuttle or the vertical conveyor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the applicant’s claim to modify Abou-chakra by incorporating at least one transfer section is arranged to temporarily take over a load carrier, and the transfer section further comprises at least one centering means, which is arranged to center a load carrier when the load carrier is set down on the transfer section by the at least one shuttle or the vertical conveyor in view of DE ‘323 to keep the shuttle undamaged.
Regrading claim 9, Abou-Chakra does not disclose the transfer section comprises two parking rails for parking the load carrier, wherein a centering means is situated on each of these the two parking rails and wherein a clear width between the centering means corresponds at least to the clear width between the two parking rails.
DE ‘323 teaches the transfer section (Fig. 3, element 68) comprises two parking rails (Fig. 6B, element 58) for parking the load carrier, wherein a centering means (Fig. 6B, elements 38 and 38’) is situated on each of these the two parking rails (Fig. 6B, element 58) and wherein a clear width between the centering means corresponds at least to the clear width between the two parking rails (Fig. 6B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the applicant’s claim to modify Abou-chakra by incorporating the transfer section comprises two parking rails for parking the load carrier, wherein a centering means is situated on each of these the two parking rails and wherein a clear width between the centering means corresponds at least to the clear width between the two parking rails in view of DE ‘323 to prevent the misalignment of load carrier during pick up or drop off process.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 202014100476 U1 in view of Abou-Chakra (US 20200122925 A1).
Regarding claim 15, DE ‘476 discloses all the limitations of the claim 10. It fails to disclose all the limitations of a shuttle system according to claim 1.
Abu-chakra teaches a shuttle system according to claim 1. (See attached annotated Fig. 1A and 3)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the applicant’s claim to modify DE ‘476 by incorporating a shuttle system according to claim 1 in view of Abu-Chakra to provide a fix and known interface so the shuttle can always pick, carry and drop the load in the same manner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional cited reference shows other rack storage system and method for operating it.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAIMIN G PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM to 5:00 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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 517-272-7097. 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.
/SAUL RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3652
/JAIMIN G PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3652