The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Although no particular errors were noted during examination, the lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the central contour control (claim 12), sequence formation (claim 14) and material flow calculator (claim 16) must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 12, 14 and 16 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.
Claims 12, 14 and 16 recite a “central contour control”, a “sequence formation”, and a “material flow calculator”, respectively. Although nominal support for such recitations is variously found in pars. [0089], [0091], [0092], [0105] and [0135], no detailed description thereof is provided (nor are they shown in the drawings, as noted above) in a manner that would apprise one of ordinary skill in the art what these features consist of, what they do and/or how they operate.
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 1-16 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.
Claim 1, line 4, it is not clear if the reference to “planes of the shelf construction” is intended to refer to the previously recited “storage and retrieval plane”, and/or the “at least one storage plane”, and/or some other unspecified planes;
and lines 8 and 12, it is unclear what is meant by the transfer stations and transfer locations, respectively, being “assigned to” the vertical conveyor. The term is vague and, absent any further limitations, imparts no clear and definitive patentable meaning.
Further, throughout claim 1, there are multiple instances of unclear and/or lack of proper antecedent basis. For example, line 8 recites “at least two transfer stations”, but “at least two transfer stations” have previously been recited in line 6. Are the line 8 transfer stations the same as those recited in line 6?
The recitations “the transfer stations” (line 9), “a load carrier” (lines 9 and 13), “a shuttle” (lines 9 and 14), and “the transfer locations” (line 13) also lack clear and proper antecedent basis.
These issues are rampant throughout the dependent claims as well. For example, in claim 2, the recitations “at least two transfer stations”, “assigned to”, “at least one transfer station”, “the vertical conveyor”, “at least two transfer locations”, and “at least one transfer location” are vague or have unclear antecedent basis in the same manner set forth above. The examiner will not point out every such occurrence in the remaining dependent claims, but they should be thoroughly reviewed and appropriately amended.
Also in claim 2, lines 3 and 5, in the lack of any particular spatial relationship being set forth, it is unclear what is meant by “before and after”.
Claim 4 recites “A method for operating a shuttle system according to claim 1, wherein …”, but does not recite any actual method steps. The scope of this claim (as well as the remaining claims 5-16 dependent thereon) is therefore unclear in that it cannot be determined if applicant is merely intending to recite a wherein clause that further defines the shuttle system of claim 1, or is intending to recite a separate independent (method) claim that requires the shuttle system of claim 1. If the former was intended, the preamble should be rewritten to recite “The shuttle system of claim 1, further comprising …” (or similar language). On the other hand, if the latter was intended, the body of the claim should be rewritten to make it clear that the shuttle system of claim 1 is required, and to recite active steps of performing a method, e.g., “providing the shuttle system of claim 1; accepting a load carrier; transferring a load carrier …” (or similar language). It is also noted that in the event applicant intended to recite a method that does not necessarily require the shuttle system of claim 1, and presents amended claims to that effect, restriction between method and apparatus claims may be required.
The remaining “method” claims should be thoroughly reviewed and appropriately amended such as to present clear method steps (if that was the intent) rather than reciting wherein or intended use limitations.
Claim 10, line 10, the recitation “where Ss the load carrier” is unclear and appears to be some sort of typographical error.
Claim 11, the recitations “including a preferred direction” and “substantially at each point along the shelf front” are not understood. Additionally, the reference to plural “industrial trucks” is unclear, as only a single industrial truck has previously been recited.
Claim 12, it is not clear what is meant by the recitations “a central contour control takes place” or “passes the same device” (which also lacks antecedent basis).
Claim 14, it is not clear what is meant by the recitations “a sequence formation … to take place” or “form the sequence” (which also lacks antecedent basis).
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 1-10 (as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth above) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abou-Chakra (US 2020/0122925, cited by applicant).
Abou-Chakra shows a shuttle system comprising: a shelf construction 1 having a storage and retrieval plane (any of Figs. 1 or 4-8); and at least one storage plane 3; wherein the shuttle system comprises at least one shuttle 5 that moves in planes of the shelf construction; the shelf construction comprises a shelf front 13b; the shelf construction comprises at least one vertical conveyor 8; the shelf construction comprises at least two transfer stations 14, along the shelf front, for storing a load carrier T into storage and retrieving it from storage into/from the shelf construction; at least two transfer stations are assigned to the vertical conveyor; the transfer stations are configured to allow a transfer of a load carrier from a shuttle 5 travelling in the storage and retrieval plane [or from a transverse travel trolley travelling in parallel with the shelf front in the storage and retrieval plane] to an industrial truck 17 travelling along the shelf front, and vice versa; at least two transfer locations 7, 9 are assigned to the at least one vertical conveyor; and the transfer locations are configured to allow a transfer of a load carrier from the vertical conveyor to a shuttle 5 travelling in the storage and retrieval plane, and vice versa, [or to the transverse travel trolley, and vice versa].
The examiner’s use of bracketing above is intended to indicate that the alternative recitation of a transverse travel trolley is not a required claim limitation (i.e., only one of a shuttle and a transverse travel trolley is required). This does not necessarily mean that the reference lacks such a disclosure, but rather that it discloses at least the non-bracketed passage. The use of such bracketing in further analysis below is for the same purpose.
Re claim 2, at least two transfer stations 14 are “assigned to” (as broadly and indefinitely recited) the at least one vertical conveyor such that in each case at least one transfer station is located “before and after” (as broadly and indefinitely recited) the vertical conveyor, along the shelf front (Fig. 1), [and/or wherein at least two transfer locations are assigned to the at least one vertical conveyor such that in each case at least one transfer location is located before and after the vertical conveyor, along the shelf front].
Re claim 3, at least one shuttle is assigned to each vertical conveyor, which shuttle is configured to transport load carriers from the transfer stations to the transfer locations and back (pars. [0119], [0124]).
Re claim 4, regardless of whether the claim was intended to be a method or simply an intended use of the apparatus, Abou-Chakra discloses that the at least one shuttle [or a transverse travel trolley] accepts a load carrier to be put into storage from a transfer station and/or transfers a load carrier to be removed from storage to a transfer station (par. [0124]).
Re claim 5, Abou-Chakra discloses storing and/or retrieving at least one load carrier from a storage plane or into a storage plane, wherein: for storing a load carrier in a storage plane, the load carrier is deposited on a first transfer station 14 and subsequently transported by a shuttle [or a transverse travel trolley] to a first transfer location 7 assigned to the vertical conveyor, whereupon the vertical conveyor accepts the load carrier and conveys it into the storage plane; and for retrieving a load carrier stored in a storage plane, the load carrier is transferred from a shuttle travelling in the storage plane to the vertical conveyor, whereupon the vertical conveyor conveys the load carrier into the storage and retrieval plane and deposits it on a second transfer location 9, where a shuttle [or a transverse travel trolley] accepts the load carrier and transports it to a second transfer station 14* (Figs. 1, 1A, 3).
Re claims 6 and 7, Abou-Chakra discloses a storing and/or a retrieving of at least one load carrier from or into a storage and retrieval plane, wherein: for storing a load carrier in the storage and retrieval plane, the load carrier is deposited on a first transfer station 14 and subsequently transported by a shuttle 5 to a storage location; and for retrieving a load carrier that is stored in the storage and retrieval plane, said load carrier is accepted, at its storage location, by a shuttle 5 and transported to a second transfer station 14* (Figs. 1, 1A).
Re claims 8 and 9, Abou-Chakra discloses storing and/or a retrieving of at least one load carrier from or into the storage and retrieval plane, wherein: for storing a load carrier in the storage and retrieval plane, the load carrier is deposited on a first transfer station 14 and subsequently received by a transverse travel trolley 5 (noting that nothing in the claim language distinguishes the term “shuttle”, as used in otherwise analogous claims 6 and 7, from the term “transverse travel trolley”, as used in claims 8 and 9) transferred to a (different) shuttle 5, which transports the load carrier to a storage location; and for retrieving a load carrier that is stored in the storage and retrieval plane, said load carrier is accepted, at its storage location, by a shuttle and transferred to the transverse travel trolley, which transports the load carrier to a second transfer station 14*.
Re claim 10, Abou-Chakra discloses storing and/or a retrieving of load carriers T into a storage plane 3 and from a storage plane, wherein: for storing the load carrier in the storage plane, the load carrier is deposited by an industrial truck 17 onto the first transfer station 14, and subsequently transported by a first shuttle 5 to a first transfer location 7 of the vertical conveyor 8, whereupon the vertical conveyor accepts the load carrier and conveys it into the storage plane; and for retrieving the load carrier stored in the storage plane, said load carrier is transferred from the shuttle travelling in the storage plane to the vertical conveyor, whereupon the vertical conveyor conveys the load carrier into the storage and retrieval plane and deposits it on the second transfer location 9, [where Ss the load carrier] and transports it to the second transfer station 14; wherein the industrial truck 17 or another industrial truck accepts the load carrier deposited on the second transfer station, wherein a travel direction of the industrial truck extends along the shelf front, and wherein, as the second transfer station, a transfer station is selected which is located downstream of the first transfer station with respect to the travel direction (Fig. 1A).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 11, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abou-Chakra.
Abou-Chakra does not disclose that industrial trucks travel along the shelf front in only one direction.
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Abou-Chakra, as the examiner takes Official Notice that the use of one-way travel of industrial trucks along a shelf front (e.g., by using a separate return or loop-type travel path) is an art recognized alternative to two-directional travel in the same environment, the selection of which would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, as this would improve throughput and avoid collisions from vehicles travelling in opposite directions.
Re claim 13, the provision of at least a third transfer station assigned to each vertical conveyor would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to allow at least one of the transfer stations to be used for storage or retrieval depending on a load assignment, thereby improving throughput, as it has been held that the mere duplication of parts involves only routine skill in the art and has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is obtained (St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8; In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378).
Re claim 15, while Abou-Chakra does not disclose multiple first and/or second transfer stations such that a shuttle transports a load carrier to or from a first or second transfer station of the plurality of such first or second stations having a shortest travel path to the vertical conveyor, Abou-Chakra does disclose generally that the system is automated such that operation thereof can be optimized for minimizing movement and travel times using inventory management software (pars. [0154] – [0168]).
As such, for substantially similar reasons set forth above with respect to claim 13, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Abou-Chakra with multiple first and/or second transfer stations to enable a shuttle to transport a load carrier to or from a first or second transfer station of the plurality of such first or second stations having a shortest travel path to the vertical conveyor, to assist in minimizing movement and travel times, as it has been held that the mere duplication of parts involves only routine skill in the art and has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is obtained.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abou-Chakra in view of Gebhardt et al (DE 102012004163).
To whatever extent the limitation may be given patentable weight in view of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) set forth above, Abou-Chakra does not appear to explicitly disclose a material flow calculator, although it does disclose generally that the system is automated such that operation thereof can be optimized for minimizing movement and travel times using inventory management software, as noted above.
In the event this is determined to not be equivalent to the claimed material flow calculator, Gebhardt shows an automated warehouse shelving system having a material flow calculator 16/18 for optimizing movement within the system.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Abou-Chakra by utilizing a material flow calculator as at least a component of the automated inventory management system, as shown by Gebhardt, for further optimization of movement and travel times of the goods throughout the storing and retrieval operations.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Keenan whose telephone number is (571)272-6925. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs.
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.
/James Keenan/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3652
2/02/26