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. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a transport device” in claim s 1 and 5 ( interpreted to be a first transport conveyor, a second transport conveyor, and a third transport conveyor, see page 22 of Applicant’s specification), “a preparation positioning unit” in claims 2 , 6 , and 13 (interpreted to be a stopping unit, having a locking portion and a drive portion (an actuator), and a positioning portion, see page 24 of Applicant’s specification) , “a partition moving unit” in claims 2 , 6 , and 13 (interpreted to be an engaging portion (a rod-shaped member) and an engagement moving mechanism (a first moving mechanism being a first moving support member and a first drive motor, a second moving mechanism being a fixed support member, a second moving support member, and a second drive motor, and an engagement position moving mechanism being an engagement support member (an L-shaped member) and an engagement position changing mechanism being a motor ) , see pages 27-28 of Applicant’s specification) , “a discrimination unit” in claim 3 (interpreted to be any component which can discriminate which partition portions are in the storage disabled state, see below 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) rejections) , “an engagement position determination unit” in claim 3 (interpreted to be any component which can determine a first engagement position or a second engagement position , see below 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) rejections) , “a rack separation unit” in claim 4 (interpreted to be a rack engaging portion, a rack lifting portion, and a support base member, see page 20 of Applicant’s specification) , “a rack transport unit” in claim 4 (interpreted to be a wheel conveyor, see page 20 of Applicant’s specification) , “the storage positioning unit” in claim 7 (interpreted to be any structure which can position the storage rack, see below 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) rejections) , “the storage object positioning unit” in claim 7 (interpreted to be a posture changing unit having a posture transport unit (a pair of roller conveyors), a holding mechanism (a pair of bar-shaped holding members), and a posture changing mechanism (a support base, a moving base, and a drive unit), see page 34 of Applicant’s specification) , “the storage transfer unit” in claim 7, “a storage rack determination unit” in claim 9, “a rack supply section determination unit ” in claim 9, “a posture changing unit” in claim 11 (interpreted to be a posture transport unit (a pair of roller conveyors), a holding mechanism (a pair of bar-shaped holding members), and a posture changing mechanism (a support base, a moving base, and a drive unit), see page 34 -35 of Applicant’s specification) , “a storage transport unit” in claim 11 (interpreted to be a storage holding portion and a three-axis moving mechanism, see page 34 of Applicant’s specification) , “a holding mechanism” in claim 11 (interpreted to be a pair of bar-shaped holding members and a holding-moving mechanism, see page 35 of Applicant’s specification) , “a posture changing mechanism” in claim 11 (interpreted to be a support base, a moving base, and a drive unit, see page 34-35 of Applicant’s specification ) , “a tire transport unit” in claim 12 (interpreted to be any structure which can transport tires, see below 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) rejections) , “a carry-in-section tire transport unit” in claim 12 (interpreted to be carry-in conveyors, see page 16 of Applicant’s specification) , “a carry-out-section tire transport unit” in claim 12 (interpreted to be carry-out conveyors, see page 18 of Applicant’s specification) , ”an engagement moving mechanism” in claim 14 (interpreted to be a first moving mechanism being a first moving support member and a first drive motor, a second moving mechanism being a fixed support member, a second moving support member, and a second drive motor, and an engagement position moving mechanism being an engagement support member (an L-shaped member) and an engagement position changing mechanism being a motor , see page 28 of Applicant’s specification) , “a first moving mechanism” in claim 15 (interpreted to be a first moving support member and a first drive motor , see page 28 of Applicant’s specification) , “a second moving mechanism” in claim 15 (interpreted to be a fixed support member, a second moving support member, and a second drive motor, see page 28 of Applicant’s specification) , “a movement assisting unit” in claim 16 (interpreted to be a first movement assisting unit having a first assisting engagement portion and a second movement assisting unit having a second assisting engagement portion, see page 30 of Applicant’s specification) , “a first partition moving unit” in claim 17 (interpreted to be an engaging portion (a rod-shaped member) and an engagement moving mechanism (a first moving mechanism being a first moving support member and a first drive motor, a second moving mechanism being a fixed support member, a second moving support member, and a second drive motor, and an engagement position moving mechanism being an engagement support member (an L-shaped member) and an engagement position changing mechanism being a motor), see pages 27-28 of Applicant’s specification) , “a second partition moving unit” in claim 17 (interpreted to be an engaging portion (a rod-shaped member) and an engagement moving mechanism (a first moving mechanism being a first moving support member and a first drive motor, a second moving mechanism being a fixed support member, a second moving support member, and a second drive motor, and an engagement position moving mechanism being an engagement support member (an L-shaped member) and an engagement position changing mechanism being a motor), see pages 27-28 of Applicant’s specification) . Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Objections Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 14, “a storage rack handling device” should be “the storage rack handling device”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claim s 3, 7, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claims 3, 7, and 12 , “a discrimination unit” in claim 3, “an engagement position determination unit” in claim 3 , “the storage positioning unit” in claim 7 , and “a tire transport unit” in claim 12 fail to comply with the written description requirement because the specification and drawings do not provide any corresponding structure for the limitations. The disclosure does not provide the relevant structure for the limitations as required under 35 USC 112(f). See below 35 USC 112(b) rejection. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 3-4, 7, 10-12, and 16 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. Regarding claims 3, 7, and 12, Claim limitation “a discrimination unit” in claim 3, “an engagement position determination unit” in claim 3, “the storage positioning unit” in claim 7, and “a tire transport unit” in claim 12 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. Regarding claim 3, “the other” lacks antecedent basis. Regarding claim 4, “the rack engaging portion”, “the rack lifting portion”, and “the one storage rack” lack antecedent basis. Regarding claim 7, “the storage object positioning unit” and “the storage transfer unit” lack antecedent basis. Regarding claim 10, “the storage object storing section” lacks antecedent basis. Regarding claim 11, “the stacked tires” lacks antecedent basis. Regarding claim 1 2 , “the storage object storing section” , “the same type and size”, and “the pick-up position” lack antecedent basis. Regarding claim 16, “the way” lacks antecedent basis. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-9, 13, 15, and 17 are allowed. Claims 3-4, 7, 10-12, and 16 would be allowed if amended to overcome the above rejections. Claim 14 would be allowed if amended to overcome the above objection. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Regarding claim 1, t he prior art of record fails to disclose, teach, or fairly suggest a storage rack supply system used for supplying a storage rack that includes a base portion and a partition portion that is foldable with respect to the base portion and that is capable of being switched between a storage disabled state in which the partition portion is folded with respect to the base portion and a storage enabled state in which the partition portion is raised with respect to the base portion, the storage rack supply system comprising: a rack supply section that supplies the storage rack being in the storage disabled state; a rack preparation section that changes the storage rack being in the storage disabled state to the storage rack being in the storage enabled state; a transport device that transports the storage rack being in the storage disabled state from the rack supply section to the rack preparation section; and a rack unloading section that unloads the storage rack being in the storage enabled state from the rack preparation section . The prior art of record that comes closest to teaching these limitations is Jay (US 3,946,876) . Jay teaches a storage rack supply system used for supplying a storage rack that includes a base portion and a partition portion that is foldable with respect to the base portion and that is capable of being switched between a storage disabled state in which the partition portion is folded with respect to the base portion and a storage enabled state in which the partition portion is raised with respect to the base portion . However, Jay fails to teach the storage rack supply system comprising: a rack supply section that supplies the storage rack being in the storage disabled state; a rack preparation section that changes the storage rack being in the storage disabled state to the storage rack being in the storage enabled state; a transport device that transports the storage rack being in the storage disabled state from the rack supply section to the rack preparation section; and a rack unloading section that unloads the storage rack being in the storage enabled state from the rack preparation section . Additionally, it would require an unreasonable combination of references that would not suffice for a realistic case of obviousness. Regarding claim 5 , t he prior art of record fails to disclose, teach, or fairly suggest a shipment system used for shipping in which an object to be stored is stored in a storage rack, the storage rack including a base portion and a partition portion that is foldable with respect to the base portion, and the storage rack being capable of switching between a storage disabled state in which the partition portion is folded with respect to the base portion and a storage enabled state in which the partition portion is raised with respect to the base portion, the shipment system comprising: a rack supply section that supplies the storage rack being in the storage disabled state; a rack preparation section that changes the storage rack being in the storage disabled state to the storage rack being in the storage enabled state; a transport device that transports the storage rack being in the storage disabled state from the rack supply section to the rack preparation section; a rack unloading section that unloads the storage rack being in the storage enabled state from the rack preparation section; and a storage section that stores an object to be stored in the storage rack being in the storage enabled state . The prior art of record that comes closest to teaching these limitations is Jay (US 3,946,876) . Jay teaches a shipment system used for shipping in which an object to be stored is stored in a storage rack, the storage rack including a base portion and a partition portion that is foldable with respect to the base portion, and the storage rack being capable of switching between a storage disabled state in which the partition portion is folded with respect to the base portion and a storage enabled state in which the partition portion is raised with respect to the base portion . However, Jay fails to teach the shipment system comprising: a rack supply section that supplies the storage rack being in the storage disabled state; a rack preparation section that changes the storage rack being in the storage disabled state to the storage rack being in the storage enabled state; a transport device that transports the storage rack being in the storage disabled state from the rack supply section to the rack preparation section; a rack unloading section that unloads the storage rack being in the storage enabled state from the rack preparation section; and a storage section that stores an object to be stored in the storage rack being in the storage enabled state . Additionally, it would require an unreasonable combination of references that would not suffice for a realistic case of obviousness. Regarding claim 13 , t he prior art of record fails to disclose, teach, or fairly suggest a storage rack handling device handling a storage rack that includes a base portion and a partition portion being foldable with respect to the base portion and that is capable of being switched between a storage disabled state in which the partition portion is folded with respect to the base portion and a storage enabled state in which the partition portion is raised with respect to the base portion, the storage rack handling device comprising: a preparation positioning unit that performs positioning of the storage rack; and a partition moving unit that has an engaging portion engaging with an engaged portion set in the partition portion, and that moves the engaging portion . The prior art of record that comes closest to teaching these limitations is Jay (US 3,946,876) . Jay teaches a storage rack that includes a base portion and a partition portion being foldable with respect to the base portion and that is capable of being switched between a storage disabled state in which the partition portion is folded with respect to the base portion and a storage enabled state in which the partition portion is raised with respect to the base portion . However, Jay fails to teach a storage rack handling device handling the storage rack , the storage rack handling device comprising: a preparation positioning unit that performs positioning of the storage rack; and a partition moving unit that has an engaging portion engaging with an engaged portion set in the partition portion, and that moves the engaging portion . Additionally, it would require an unreasonable combination of references that would not suffice for a realistic case of obviousness. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT VERONICA MARTIN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-3541 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Thursday 8:00-6:00 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Anna Kinsaul can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1926 . 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. /VERONICA MARTIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731