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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed June 11, 2020. Claims 4-10 are currently pending, with claims 1-3 being cancelled and claims 4-10 being newly added.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement of June 11, 2006 was received and reviewed.
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.
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: Claim 10 recites “at least one transmission module”, “a contacting unit”, “a connecting element”, “a regulator unit”, “a communication unit”, and “a spring contact unit”. There is no corresponding description of the listed generic placeholder elements.
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 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.
Claims 9 and 10 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.
Claim 9 recites “at least one main line running along the storage rack …”, “a distribution port supported by the storage rack and connected to the main line” and “a carrier transfer controller for regulating the current through the transmission module” which were not disclosed in the application as originally filed.
Claim 10 recites “one main line running along the storage rack …”, “at least one transmission module …”, “a contacting unit arranged …”, “a connecting element connected to …”, “a central control unit”, “a regulator unit for regulating …” and “a spring contact unit” which were not disclosed in the application as originally filed.
Applicant can present evidence that the alleged new matter elements listed above were in fact disclosed by the original disclosure, amend the claims to remove the new matter elements or cancel the rejected claims.
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.
Claim 10 recites the limitations “at least one transmission module”, “a contacting unit”, “a connecting element”, “a regulator unit”, “a communication unit”, and “a spring contact unit” which invoke 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellheimer, DE94111922 (cited in IDS filed 6/11/2026) in view of IHI Corp., JP2015013736 (cited in IDS filed 6/11/2026).
Claim 4, Bellheimer discloses:
A storage rack for storing items (Figs. 1-2), the storage rack comprising:
a housing delimiting an upwardly-extending storage space (1), said housing comprising a plurality of storage locations arranged one above another for containing the items during storage (see the array of shelves 7 arranged one on top of the other, Fig. 1), and a retrieval space for user retrieval of said items (6);
a plurality of item carriers (8) respectively removably received at the storage locations of the storage rack, said item carriers being arranged for receiving the items to be stored (see Fig. 2, 8 is configured to receive items therein);
a transport device configured for moving the item carriers between the storage locations and the retrieval space (platform 5 is guided on rails 4 to move up and down and the storage containers 8 are stored and retrieved from shelf positions), wherein said transport device comprises a support member arranged for upward and downward movement relative to the storage rack and configured to carry the item carriers and exchange the item carriers with the storage rack (the translation describes “Each of the shelf columns 2, 3 is equipped with support rails 7 arranged in pairs for holding storage containers 8. A known transfer device (not shown in the drawing) is used for storing and retrieving the storage containers 8, …); and
an electrical power distribution system for providing electrical power for the items on the item carriers (see Fig. 2, plug 10, switch 11, socket 12 described in the translation, the reference numbers are not shown in the Figs.), wherein the electrical power distribution system comprises:
a plurality of distribution ports (socket 12) supported by the storage rack and respectively associated with the storage locations (sockets 12 at each level), wherein the distribution ports are arranged for electrical connection to an electrical power source and configured to transmit the electrical power therefrom (it is implied there is a power source otherwise the plug, switch and sockets would be useless);
a plurality of receiver ports (see Fig. 2) respectively supported on the item carriers, wherein each of the receiver ports is configured to removably electrically connect to a respective one of the distribution ports to receive the electrical power from the electrical power source when the respective item carrier is stored at a corresponding one of the storage locations with which the respective distribution port is associated (Fig. 2 shows how the storage containers 8 have electrical connections, plugs, to items stored therein, and the back of the storage container 8 has electrical connections to the power socket mounted to the shelf frame);
a plurality of electrical receptacles supported on the item carriers and electrically connected to the receiver ports to receive the electrical power therefrom (see Fig. 2), wherein the electrical receptacles are configured to be electrically connected to electrically-powered types of the items on the item carriers (Fig. 2).
Bellheimer does not explicitly disclose “a rack power transfer controller operatively communicated with the distribution ports and the receiver ports; wherein the rack power transfer controller is configured to control the distribution ports to transfer the electrical power to the receiver ports when respective ones of the item carriers are in the storage condition.”
IHI is directed towards an automatic storage system for ultra-low temperature storage including power transfer to individual cooling and storage units. IHI discloses “a rack power transfer controller (overall control unit 116) operatively communicated with the distribution ports and the receiver ports (the power supply unit 110 and the power receiving unit 210 are controlled by the overall control unit 116 through individual control units 222 which manages and control each respective compact freezer unit 200, [0058], [0102], [0103]; control of each cooling unit constitutes control of power supply or power state to each cooling unit because power is require to run the cooling function of each cooling unit); wherein the rack power transfer controller is configured to control the distribution ports to transfer the electrical power to the receiver ports when respective ones of the item carriers are in the storage condition (as explained above the overall control unit 116 and the individual control units 222 control power and cooling operation at each cooling unit; each cooling unit includes, see Fig. 9, power supply units are in electrical communication with power reception units, [0089]-[0091]).”
IHI is relied on to show that it was known to use a main controller and individual controllers at each storage location to manage the electricity and electrically powered devices at each storage location.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the claimed invention to incorporate a power transfer controller in the storage assembly of Bellheimer at least because power transfer control provides for efficiency of power use and safety to prevent damage to products, storage system components, and user safety.
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellheimer and IHI as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Murata Machinery JP2009050076 (cited in IDS filed 6/11/2026).
Claim 5, Bellheimer and IHI do not explicitly disclose “the distribution and receiver ports are configured for electrical interconnection by mechanically biasing electrical conductors of the distribution and receiver ports into physical contact”. However, Murata discloses a charging system and method for an internal battery of a cooling storage unit. Murata discloses in Figs. 4A,B a shelf configuration of a rack 20 for receiving a cool box 7, the shelf being provided with a power supply plug 42 which is biased into engagement with the socket 431 via spring 422, see description in translation of Figs. 4A,B. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to use a spring to bias the electrical connections of Bellheimer together at least because a spring biased connection would ensure connection and prevent a user from having to manually establish the connection.
Claim 9 is substantially similar to the combination of claims 4 and 5. The same teachings and reasoning provided above for the rejections of claims 4 and 5 apply to the rejection of claim 9.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 8 are allowed.
Claim 6 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: none of the prior art discloses or renders obvious “wherein the carrier power transfer controllers are configured to block transmission of the electrical power to the electrical receptacles until a prescribed duration has elapsed” as recited in claims 6 and 7. The closes prior art fails to teach or render obvious that control of the transmission of power at the powered storage shelves.
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 JACOB S. SCOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-3415. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10am-6pm.
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. 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.
/JACOB S. SCOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights