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 § 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, 5-7, 11 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brown 2023/0243567.
In Re Claim 1, Brown teaches a vertical cold chain temperature-controlled storage system, comprising: a vertical lift module (Fig. 2-4) comprising: a plurality of shelves; (20) and at least one opening; (Opening on rack 20 for containers) wherein one or more of the plurality of shelves comprises a power subsystem (24, Fig. 4) for powering one or more totes (12a), and wherein the vertical cold chain temperature-controlled storage system is configured to be installed and operated in an ambient, non-refrigerated environment without temperature controlled zones, wherein temperature control for items stored on the plurality of shelves is provided by the one or more totes. (Paragraph 20 and 21)
In Re Claim 5, Brown teaches a communication module (18a).
In Re Claim 6, Brown teaches wherein the communication module enables control of on demand cooling for one or more of the plurality of shelves. (Paragraph 21)
In Re Claim 7, Brown teaches at least two openings (Openings on rack 20 for containers)in the vertical lift module.
In Re Claim 11, Brown teaches method of operating a vertical cold chain temperature-controlled storage system, comprising: providing, via a power subsystem (24), power to one or more totes (12a) on one or more of a plurality of shelves (20), wherein the vertical cold chain temperature-controlled storage system comprises: a vertical lift module (Figures 2-4) comprising: a plurality of shelves (20), and at least one opening (Opening on rack 20 for containers); and operating the vertical cold chain temperature-controlled storage system in an ambient, non-refrigerated environment without temperature controlled zones, wherein temperature control for items stored on the plurality of shelves is provided by the one or more totes. (Paragraph 20 and 21)
In Re Claim 15, Brown teaches providing, via a communication module (18a), communication with the vertical cold chain temperature-controlled storage system.
In Re Claim 16, Brown teaches wherein providing communication enables control of on demand cooling for one or more of the plurality of shelves. (Paragraph 21)
In Re Claim 17, Brown teaches wherein the vertical lift module comprises at least two openings (Openings on rack 20 for containers).
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(s) 2-4, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown and in view of Martin et al. 2022/0327602.
In Re Claims 2-4, 8, 12, 13, 14 and 18, Brown teaches the system of Claims 1, 7, 11 and 17 as discussed above.
Brown does not teach power contacts at the bottom of the shelves.
However, Martin et al. teach wherein the power subsystem comprising power contacts (124) at the bottom of the shelves (120, Fig. 1C) for powering a tote (100); and
wherein the power subsystem comprises a wireless power system. (Paragraph 22) wherein one or more of the plurality of shelves comprises a locking mechanism (Securing mechanism, Paragraph 21) for securing a tote. 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).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use a use a power susbsystem comprising power contacts at the bottom of the shelves in the system/method of Brown as taught by Martin et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order provide more area for the tote.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown and in view of Yoshiaki JP 61081317, provided by Applicant.
In Re Claims 10 and 20, Brown teaches the system and method of Claims 1 and 11 as discussed above.
Brown 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 Brown 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8, 10-18 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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