The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The amendment filed 5/11/26 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: new Fig. 7, which shows a central contour control device with specificity beyond what was described in the original disclosure. Specifically, in the remarks section of the amendment filed 5/11/26, applicant states:
“Applicant has included Figure 7 to illustrate a contour control as described in paragraph [0089] [which states]:
It may be conceivable to provide a central contour control in such a way that all the industrial trucks can pass the same device for contour control. It may also be conceivable to provide a plurality of devices for contour control, such that industrial trucks which travel towards the shelf construction from different directions do not have to make detours in order to reach the device for contour control. In all cases, it is preferably conceivable for one or more such devices to be used by a plurality of industrial trucks in each case. Following passing the at least one central contour channel, the industrial trucks can start their travel along the shelf front to the transfer stations at a point or portion of the shelf front. The central contour control can be arranged on an edge or a boundary of the storage pre-zone.
For example, a contour control is an arc or rectangular shaped device including light barriers for dimension control. Such a device measures/scans the dimensions (e.g., width, height, length, etc.) of any item, especially those stored on a pallet, when an item is transported through it. Applicant has amended the specification at paragraph [0135] to assign element number (15) to the example contour control described and shown in Figure 7.”
First, applicant has not in fact amended par. [0135] (or any other par.) to assign reference numeral 15 to the contour control. More importantly, whether or not a central contour control is “an arc or rectangular shaped device including light barriers for dimension control [which] ... measures/scans the dimensions ... of any item, especially those stored on a pallet, when an item is transported through it” is not the issue. Rather, the issue is that such a device was neither shown nor described in the original disclosure with the specificity now portrayed in Fig. 7. Unless applicant acknowledges that the central contour control device shown in Fig. 7 is known prior art and forms no part of the disclosed invention, such material is considered new matter.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The drawings are objected to because new Fig. 7 introduces new matter, as explained above in par. 2. 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 drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character not mentioned in the description: 15 (Fig. 7). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: par. [0139] refers to “a contour control means (not shown)”. However, this is shown in new Fig. 7 (although it is considered new matter, as noted above in par. 2).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 12 is 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 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 12 recites a “central contour control device”. Although nominal support for such a device is found in pars. [0089] and [0135], no detailed description thereof is provided in a manner that would apprise one of ordinary skill in the art what such a device consists of, what it does and/or how it operates.
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 1-4, 6-9 and 12-17 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 13, it is unclear what is meant by the transfer stations and transfer locations, respectively, being “assigned to” the vertical conveyor (this also applies to claims 2 and 3). The term is vague and, absent any further limitations, imparts no clear and definitive patentable meaning.
Re applicant’s arguments that pars. [0012] and [0040] of the specification adequately describe what is meant by the terms “planes” and “assigned to”, the issue here is not that the disclosure of such features is lacking in the specification, but rather that the claims themselves must particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. As currently recited, the claim language does not do so.
The recitations “a load carrier” in lines 9 and 13 also lack clear and proper antecedent basis, as a load carrier has previously been recited in line 7.
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 is replete with recitations which either lack or have unclear antecedent basis, including:
“at least one load carrier”, “the load carrier” and “a load carrier”, lines 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 24 and 25;
“a storage plane”, line 3;
“the vertical conveyor”, lines 8, 11 and 12; and
“the second transfer station”, “a second transfer station” and “a transfer station”, lines 14, 16, 18, 25 and 26.
Claims 6-9 have similar unclear/lack of antecedent basis issues, e.g., “at least one load carrier”, “a storage and retrieval plane”, “a first transfer station”, “shuttle”, “a transverse travel trolley”, etc.
It is also noted that as now amended, claims 7 and 9 are identical to claims 6 and 8, respectively.
Claim 12, it is not clear what is meant by the recitation “pass the same central contour control device” (which also lacks antecedent basis).
Claim 14, the recitations “the plurality of industrial trucks”, “the load carriers” and “second transfer stations” lack and/or have unclear antecedent basis, and it is not clear what is meant by the recitation “form the sequence” (which also lacks antecedent basis).
Claim 15, the recitations “the shuttle”, “the load carrier”, “a plurality of first transfer stations”, “the vertical conveyor”,” a load carrier” and “a group of a plurality of second transfer stations” lack and/or have unclear antecedent basis.
Claim 17, it is not clear what is meant by “each vertical conveyor has two transfer locations located at the shelf front”, and the recitation “the vertical conveyor” lacks clear 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 1-3 (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, previously cited).
Abou-Chakra shows a shuttle system comprising: a shelf construction 1 having a storage and retrieval plane (the plane shown in 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 the load carrier from storage into/from the shelf construction; the at least two transfer stations are assigned to the at least one vertical conveyor; the at least two transfer stations are configured to allow a transfer of a load carrier from a shuttle 5 of the at least one shuttle 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 at least two transfer locations are configured to allow a transfer of a load carrier from the at least one vertical conveyor to a shuttle 5 of the at least one shuttle travelling in the storage and retrieval plane, and vice versa, [or to the transverse travel trolley, and vice versa]; and wherein the at least two transfer stations are configured for “temporal storage” of the load carrier awaiting transfer via the at least one vertical conveyor, as broadly recited (i.e., load carriers can be placed on the transfer stations by either the shuttle or the industrial truck, and subsequently removed therefrom by the other of the shuttle or the industrial truck (Fig. 1A and pars. [0119] to [0126]); absent any structural limitations of the term, the time period between a load carrier being placed on and subsequently removed from a transfer station is considered to be “temporal storage”.
Note: 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 the further analysis below is for the same purpose.
Re claim 2, the 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, and the at least shuttle is configured to transport load carriers from the at least two transfer stations to the at least two transfer locations and back (pars. [0119], [0124]).
Applicant's arguments filed 5/11/26 with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Abou-Chakra does not show that the transfer stations thereof allow temporal storage for load carriers, but rather discloses in par. [0101] a single lift with two locations for each rack aisle that are essentially a transfer point between the shuttle and the lift (presumably referring to elements 7 and 9, as described therein). However, it is not the transfer locations 7 and 9 of Chakra that the examiner relies on to meet the claim limitation, but rather the transfer stations 14, as noted above. Again, nothing precludes the examiner’s reasonably broad interpretation of the claim limitation “temporal storage”.
Claims 4, 6, 8 and 13-17 (as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth above) would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
8/04/26
Prosecution Insights