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 .
Status of Claims
This action is responsive to Applicant’s claims filed 01/09/2024.
Claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been examined here.
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.
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 –
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.
(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 1-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beer, Christian (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20150023772; hereinafter "Beer").
As per claim 1, Beer teaches:
An extractor device for transferring a storage-article carrier from or into a storage position of a storage system,
Beer teaches a system and method for storing items into and out of a storage shelf via a storage-article carrier. (Beer: abstract, paragraph [0077, 80], Fig. 1)
having a carriage, with a traction drive which has a pulling means and at least one deflection location, located on the carriage, for the pulling means,
Beer teaches that the system may comprise a carriage 33. (Beer: paragraph [0086-87, 91]) Beer further teaches a traction drive in the form of a guide 49 below the carriage 33. (Beer: paragraph [0111], Fig. 8, 9) Beer teaches a pulling means in the form of a belt 21 with deflection locations 20, 35, 36, 45a, 46a, 56, 57. (Beer: paragraphs [0112, 113], Figs. 8,9, 14-15)
with an extractor framework, on which the carriage and the traction drive are movably arranged,
Beer teaches that the transport robot may be driven in a displaceable manner on a pair of tracks 2 in an extractor framework 12. (Beer: paragraphs [0073-77], Figs. 1-2)
and with a securing device, by means of which selectably at least one portion of the pulling means or the carriage is blocked with respect to the extractor framework.
Beer teaches a clamping device which, when engaged onto the belt, causes the carriage to translate in directions 26, 27, relative to the traction drive, wherein, when not engaged, the belt itself may move about both the carriage and the traction drive thereby moving the carriage translationally when engaged, and moving the belt rotationally when not engaged so that an article may be moved along the belt relative to the traction drive and carriage. (Beer: paragraphs [0083, 91-98], Figs. 8, 9, 14, 15)
As per claim 2, Beer teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the extractor device has a drive by means of which when the at least one portion of the pulling means is blocked with respect to the extractor framework, the carriage can be moved relative to the extractor framework and when the carriage is blocked with respect to the extractor framework, the traction drive can be moved relative to the extractor framework.
Beer further teaches a drive in the form of a drive gear 55. (Beer: paragraph [0093]) Beer teaches a clamping device which, when engaged onto the belt, causes the carriage to translate in directions 26, 27, relative to the traction drive, wherein, when not engaged, the belt itself may move about both the carriage and the traction drive thereby moving the carriage translationally when engaged, and moving the belt rotationally when not engaged so that an article may be moved along the belt relative to the traction drive and carriage. (Beer: paragraphs [0083, 91-98], Figs. 8, 9, 14, 15)
As per claim 3, Beer teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein when the at least one portion of the pulling means is blocked with respect to the extractor framework, the carriage is moved relative to the extractor framework by the traction drive.
Beer teaches a clamping device which, when engaged onto the belt, causes the carriage to translate in directions 26, 27, relative to the traction drive, wherein, when not engaged, the belt itself may move about both the carriage and the traction drive thereby moving the carriage translationally when engaged, and moving the belt rotationally when not engaged so that an article may be moved along the belt relative to the traction drive and carriage. (Beer: paragraphs [0083, 91-98], Figs. 8, 9, 14, 15)
As per claim 4, Beer teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the securing device is arranged on the extractor framework and is configured such that it can be brought alternately into engagement with the carriage or the traction drive.
Beer teaches a clamping device which, when engaged onto the belt, causes the carriage to translate in directions 26, 27, relative to the traction drive, wherein, when not engaged, the belt itself may move about both the carriage and the traction drive thereby moving the carriage translationally when engaged, and moving the belt rotationally when not engaged so that an article may be moved along the belt relative to the traction drive and carriage. (Beer: paragraphs [0083, 91-98], Figs. 8, 9, 14, 15)
As per claim 5, Beer teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the securing device is configured to be switchable between a first securing position and a second securing position, wherein in the first securing position the at least one portion of the pulling means is secured with respect to the extractor framework and the carriage is drivable with respect to the extractor framework by the traction drive, and wherein in the second securing position the carriage is secured with respect to the extractor framework and the pulling means is drivable in rotation with respect to the carriage.
Beer teaches a clamping device which, when engaged onto the belt, causes the carriage to translate in directions 26, 27, relative to the traction drive, wherein, when not engaged, the belt itself may move about both the carriage and the traction drive thereby moving the carriage translationally when engaged, and moving the belt rotationally when not engaged so that an article may be moved along the belt relative to the traction drive and carriage. (Beer: paragraphs [0083, 91-98], Figs. 8, 9, 14, 15)
As per claim 6, Beer teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the securing device and/or the carriage is arranged in an area looped by the pulling means.
Beer further teaches that the clamping device may sit within an area looped by a belt 21. (Beer: paragraphs [0083, 91-98, Figs. 8, 9, 14, 15)
As per claim 7, Beer teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein a plurality of engagement locations spaced apart from each other is provided, at which the carriage can be blocked relative to the extractor device.
Beer teaches a clamping device which, when engaged onto the belt, causes the carriage to translate in directions 26, 27, relative to the traction drive, wherein, when not engaged, the belt itself may move about both the carriage and the traction drive thereby moving the carriage translationally when engaged, and moving the belt rotationally when not engaged so that an article may be moved along the belt relative to the traction drive and carriage. (Beer: paragraphs [0083, 91-98], Figs. 8, 9, 14, 15) In teaching that the clamping means may engage with the belt in multiple locations, Beer teaches the provision of a plurality of engagement locations spaced apart from each other at which the carriage may be blocked relative to the extract device. Id.
As per claim 8, Beer teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the securing device has a translationally and/or rotationally movable securing element which can be brought alternately into engagement with the traction drive and the carriage.
Beer teaches a clamping device which, when engaged onto the belt, causes the carriage to translate in directions 26, 27, relative to the traction drive, wherein, when not engaged, the belt itself may move about both the carriage and the traction drive thereby moving the carriage translationally when engaged, and moving the belt rotationally when not engaged so that an article may be moved along the belt relative to the traction drive and carriage. (Beer: paragraphs [0083, 91-98], Figs. 8, 9, 14, 15)
As per claim 9, Beer teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the carriage has a plurality of positions at which it can be secured with respect to the extractor framework by the securing device.
Beer teaches a clamping device which, when engaged onto the belt, causes the carriage to translate in directions 26, 27, relative to the traction drive, wherein, when not engaged, the belt itself may move about both the carriage and the traction drive thereby moving the carriage translationally when engaged, and moving the belt rotationally when not engaged so that an article may be moved along the belt relative to the traction drive and carriage. (Beer: paragraphs [0083, 91-98], Figs. 8, 9, 14, 15) In teaching that the clamping means may engage with the belt in multiple locations, Beer teaches the provision of a plurality of engagement locations spaced apart from each other at which the carriage may be blocked relative to the extract device. Id.
As per claim 10, Beer teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the extractor device comprises at least one pair of traction drives and/or carriages arranged parallel to and spaced apart from each other.
Beer teaches that carriages may be spaced parallel to each other, wherein a delivery plate may sit between the two. (Beer: paragraphs [0068-77, Figs. 1-2, 6-7)
As per claim 11, Beer teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein at least two deflection locations are arranged on the carriage and at least one deflection location is arranged on the extractor framework.
Beer teaches a pulling means in the form of a belt 21 with deflection locations 20, 35, 36, 45a, 46a, 56, 57 on the carriage and extractor framework. (Beer: paragraphs [0112, 113], Figs. 8,9, 14-15)
As per claim 12, Beer teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the traction drive has a pulling means, and having at least one storage-article carrier which has an engagement profile which can be brought directly into engagement with the pulling means.
Beer teaches a pulling means in the form of a belt 21 with deflection locations 20, 35, 36, 45a, 46a, 56, 57. (Beer: paragraphs [0112, 113], Figs. 8,9, 14-15) Beer further teaches a storage-article carrier in the form of a tray 11 which may come into contact with the belt. (Beer: paragraph [0077], Fig 1-2)
As per claim 14, Beer teaches:
A method for transferring a storage-article carrier from a storage position of a storage system to an extractor device and/or from the extractor device to the storage position
Beer teaches a system and method for storing items into and out of a storage shelf via a storage-article carrier. (Beer: abstract, paragraph [0077, 80], Fig. 1)
by means of a traction drive having a pulling means and a carriage deflecting the pulling means, which are both arranged movably on an extractor framework of the extractor device,
Beer teaches that the system may comprise a carriage 33. (Beer: paragraph [0086-87, 91]) Beer further teaches a traction drive in the form of a guide 49 below the carriage 33. (Beer: paragraph [0111], Fig. 8, 9) Beer teaches a pulling means in the form of a belt 21 with deflection locations 20, 35, 36, 45a, 46a, 56, 57. (Beer: paragraphs [0112, 113], Figs. 8,9, 14-15)
wherein selectably the carriage is blocked relative to the extractor framework and the storage-article carrier is moved by means of the traction drive, or at least a portion of the pulling means is blocked relative to the extractor framework and the carriage is moved by the traction drive.
Beer teaches a clamping device which, when engaged onto the belt, causes the carriage to translate in directions 26, 27, relative to the traction drive, wherein, when not engaged, the belt itself may move about both the carriage and the traction drive thereby moving the carriage translationally when engaged, and moving the belt rotationally when not engaged so that an article may be moved along the belt relative to the traction drive and carriage. (Beer: paragraphs [0083, 91-98], Figs. 8, 9, 14, 15)
As per claim 15, Beer teaches all of the limitations of claim 14, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein first the carriage is moved by the blocked traction drive to the storage position, then the storage-article carrier is moved by the traction drive towards or away from the extractor framework when the carriage is blocked, and then the carriage is moved in a direction of the extractor framework by the blocked traction drive.
Beer further teaches a drive in the form of a drive gear 55. (Beer: paragraph [0093]) Beer teaches a clamping device which, when engaged onto the belt, causes the carriage to translate in directions 26, 27, relative to the traction drive, wherein, when not engaged, the belt itself may move about both the carriage and the traction drive thereby moving the carriage translationally when engaged, and moving the belt rotationally when not engaged so that an article may be moved along the belt relative to the traction drive and carriage. (Beer: paragraphs [0083, 91-98], Figs. 8, 9, 14, 15)
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beer in view of Durand et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20050063801; hereinafter "Durand").
As per claim 13, Beer teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, but does not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein the storage system has a storage shaft and a plurality of storage positions which adjoin the storage shaft, wherein the extractor device is arranged in the storage shaft so as to be movable horizontally and/or vertically past the storage positions.
Durand, however, teaches a central shaft inside a storage unit, wherein an extractor 03 may move vertically and horizontally within the shaft in order to extract items from bins within the storage unit. (Durand: paragraphs [0055-63], Figs. 2, 4, 5-6) Durand teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Beer for the benefit of providing a system in which it is possible to stock and dispense fragile or deformable articles; the reloading of the stock of objects can be done without interrupting the functioning of the system, which prevents operating losses during operations for reconstituting the reserves; the starting of the movement of the conveyor belts on which the objects are stocked is ensured by the extractor(s), which limits the cost and the complexity of the stocking trays; the number of stocking racks and their arrangement in one or two rows can be easily modulated as a function of the number and the volume of objects to be dispensed and the configuration of the place in which the system is installed. (Durand: paragraph [0020-23]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Durand with the teachings of Beer to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMETT K WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 6 a.m. - 4:45 p.m..
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 571-270-3445. 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.
/EMMETT K. WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628