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 § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inui et al. 2014/0003902 and in view of Nogami et al. 2016/0379858.
In Re Claims 1 and 5, Inui et al. teach a ceiling storage rack (D, E, Fig. 1) in a conveyance system including a conveyance rail (2) and a conveyance carriage (A), the ceiling storage rack being configured to store a predetermined object (B) and being suspended from a ceiling (T), the ceiling storage rack comprising: a plurality of shelves (18, U, Fig. 1 and 4) that are able to be raised and lowered; (Paragraph 70) and a raising and lowering section that raises and lowers the plurality of shelves, (Paragraph 70)
Inui et al. do not teach vertically adjacent ones of the plurality of shelves being able to come closer to each other so that a distance therebetween is smaller than a height of the object.
However, Nogami et al. teach vertically adjacent ones of the plurality of shelves (117) being able to come closer to each other so that a distance therebetween is smaller than a height of the object; and (Paragraph 27) wherein, after the object has been placed on one of the plurality of shelves, the raising and lowering section raises and lowers the one of the plurality of shelves to a position at which the object is able to be placed on another one of the plurality of shelves which is directly below the one of the plurality of shelves. (Paragraph 27 and 28)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use adjacent shelves able to move adjacent to each other as taught by Nogami et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to prevent incorrect sized articles from being used.
In Re Claim 2, Inui et al. teach wherein the raising and lowering section includes a gripping independent section (17) that is configured to be raised and lowered, to grip the plurality of shelves, and to set each of the plurality of shelves at a desired height. (Fig. 4)
In Re Claim 6, Inui et al. teach wherein, in a case where the conveyance carriage is to take out the object placed on one of the plurality of shelves, the raising and lowering section is capable of raising and lowering the one of the plurality of shelves to a desired position at which the conveyance carriage is able to pick up the object. (Paragraph 70)
In Re Claim 7, Inui et al. teach wherein the plurality of shelves are able to be raised and lowered independently of each other. (Paragraph 70)
In Re Claim 8, Inui et al. teach a conveyance rail (2, Fig. 1, Fig. 2) provided adjacent to the ceiling storage rack; and a conveyance carriage (A, Fig. 1, 2) that travels on the conveyance rail and that places the object in the ceiling storage rack. (Paragraph 31)
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inui et al./Nogami and in view of Reimer et al. 9,266,674.
In Re Claims 3 and 4, Inui et al./Nogami et al. teaches the rack of Claim 2 as discussed above.
Inui et al./Nogami et al. do not teach further comprising engagement members that are able to be engaged with the plurality of shelves at a plurality of heights differing from each other.
However, Reimer et al. teach further comprising engagement members (14a-14e) that are able to be engaged with the plurality of shelves (16, Fig. 8) at a plurality of heights differing from each other; (Fig. 4-5e) and wherein, after the object has been placed on one of the plurality of shelves, the raising and lowering section is capable of raising and lowering the one of the plurality of shelves on which the object is placed, so as to engage the one of the plurality of shelves with the engagement members. (Fig. 4-5f)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add engagement members to the rack of Inui et al./Nogami et al. as taught by Reimer et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to detect position of the shelves.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Nakao et al., Ota et al. and Yoo et al. teach ceiling storage racks in a conveyance system including a conveyance rail and a conveyance carriage, the ceiling storage rack being configured to store a predetermined object and being suspended from a ceiling, the ceiling storage rack comprising: a plurality of shelves.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GLENN F MYERS whose telephone number is (571)270-1160. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 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 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 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.
GLENN F. MYERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3652
/GLENN F MYERS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3652