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 § 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.
Claims 8 and 18 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.
Claims 8 and 18 recite the limitation "both directions". Since there is no prior reference to any direction, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “both directions” is being interpreted as “two directions”.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Martin et al. 2022/0327602.
In Re Claim 1, Martin et al. teach a vertical cold chain temperature-controlled storage system, comprising: a vertical lift module (Fig. 1C)(Paragraph 18) comprising: a plurality of shelves (120, Fig. 1C); and at least one opening (See Openings between shelves and opening at the top of Shelves, fig. 1C); wherein one or more of the plurality of shelves comprises a power subsystem (Paragraph 22) for powering a tote (100)
In Re Claim 2, Martin et al. teach wherein the power subsystem comprises power contacts (124) at the bottom of the shelves.
In Re Claim 3, Martin et al. teach wherein the power subsystem comprises a wireless power system. (Paragraph 22)
In Re Claim 4, Martin et al. teach wherein one or more of the plurality of shelves comprises a locking mechanism (Securing mechanism, Paragraph 21) for securing a tote.
In Re Claim 5, Martin et al. teach a communication module (200).
In Re Claim 6, Martin et al. teach wherein the communication module enables control of on demand cooling for one or more of the plurality of shelves. (abstract).
In Re Claim 7, Martin et al. teach at least two openings (Openings between shelves) in the vertical lift module.
In Re Claim 8, as best understood, Martin et al. teach wherein the at least two openings (top opening and openings between shelves, Fig. 1C) in the vertical lift module enable a tote to be placed on or off the shelf from two directions (top and front, Fig. 1C).
In Re Claim 9, Martin et al. teach wherein the vertical cold chain temperature-controlled storage system is in an ambient environment. (Paragraph 76)
method of operating a vertical cold chain temperature-controlled storage system, comprising:
In Re Claim 11, Martin et al. teach a method of operating a vertical cold chain temperature-controlled storage system, comprising: providing, via a power subsystem (Paragraph 22), power a tote (100) on one or more of a plurality of shelves (Fig. 1C); where the vertical cold chain temperature-controlled storage system comprises: a vertical lift module (Fig. 1C)(Paragraph 18) comprising: a plurality of shelves (Shelves, Fig. 1C); and at least one opening (Openings between shelves, Opening at the top, Fig. 1C).
In Re Claim 12, Martin et al. teach wherein the power subsystem comprises power contacts (124) at the bottom of the shelves.
In Re Claim 13, Martin et al. teach wherein the power subsystem comprises a wireless power system. (Paragraph 22)
In Re Claim 14, Martin et al. teach wherein one or more of the plurality of shelves comprises a locking mechanism (Securing mechanism, Paragraph 21) for securing a tote.
In Re Claim 15, Martin et al. teach providing, via a communication module (200), communication with the vertical cold chain temperature-controlled storage system. (abstract)
In Re Claim 16, Martin et al. teach wherein providing communication enables control of on demand cooling for one or more of the plurality of shelves. (abstract).
In Re Claim 17, Martin et al. teach at least two openings (Openings between shelves) in the vertical lift module.
In Re Claim 18, as best understood, Martin et al. teach enabling a tote to be placed on or off the shelf from two directions. (top opening and openings between shelves enable placing the tote from the top or front, Fig. 1C)
In Re Claim 19, Martin et al. teach wherein the vertical cold chain temperature-controlled storage system is in an ambient environment. (Paragraph 76)
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 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin and in view of Yoshiaki JP 61081317, provided by Applicant.
In Re Claims 10 and 20, Martin teaches the system and method of Claims 1 and 11 as discussed above.
Martin does not teach wherein the vertical lift module can rotate the plurality of shelves to align one or more of the plurality of shelves with the at least one opening.
However, Yoshiaki teaches wherein the vertical lift module (Fig. 6) can rotate the plurality of shelves to align one or more of the plurality of shelves with the at least one opening. (See Fig. 6, Shelves rotate to openings)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use a vertical lift module that can rotate the plurality of shelves to align one or more of the plurality of shelves with the at least one opening in the system/method of Martin as taught by Yoshiaki with a reasonable expectation for success in order reduce the amount of movement on the operator or transfer device when transferring material.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Williams et al. teach a refrigerated tote that connects to shelves for power. Rutman et al. teach a refrigerated tote that wirelessly connects to power on a shelf. Moudy teaches a refrigerated tote connects to a storage system for power.
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
Prosecution Insights