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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Invention I (claims 1-17) in the reply filed on February 11, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 18 and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 1-17 will be examined below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) submitted November 16, 2023, April 17, 2024, and February 11, 2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 13, lines 23-25 refer to a “crossbar 101” as being in Figure 7, however, reference number 101 does not appear in Figure 7. Rather, 101 appears in Figure 8. It appears the specification may contain a typo.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 12 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12, line 4 recites “the load handler” and, “the load handler” should be changed to “a load handler” to create proper antecedent basis for the feature.
Claim 17, line 2 recites “the collector” which lacks proper antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 8 is 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 8 recites “wherein components of the cleaning device are…” and the scope covered by “components” is unclear. Claim 8 depends from claim 1 which introduced “a storage rack cleaning device”, however neither claim adds any specific structures which are “components” of the “cleaning device”. As far as claim 8 is definite and understood, the cleaning device is integrated on and/or in a storage container.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-3, 5, 8, 9, 12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 102014006098 to Stock (a machine translation will be referred to herein).
In Reference to Claim 1#
Stock teaches:
A storage rack cleaning device (8) for fully automated cleaning of a storage rack (1) used for storing storage goods (containments 6), wherein the cleaning device has outer dimensions sized to those of a loading aid stored in the storage rack such that the cleaning device can be handled by a load handler (7) of a rack serving apparatus (2) configured to place goods into and remove goods from the storage rack (see paragraphs 19-20 and Figures 1, 2a, 2b, and 3).
Regarding the outer dimensions, Figures 1-3 all show the cleaning device (8) fitting between vertical beams (3) and horizontal beams (4). Accordingly, the cleaning device is considered to have “outer dimensions” sized such that the cleaning device can be handled by a load handler.
In Reference to Claim 2#
Stock teaches:
The storage rack cleaning device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the cleaning device comprises a fan (suction device 16, paragraph 22, lines 4-7), a dirt receptacle (dirt tank 15, paragraph 22, lines 3-4) and a filter (not numbered, paragraph 10, line 6).
In Reference to Claim 3 #
Stock teaches:
The storage rack cleaning device as claimed in claim 2, further comprising a battery (see paragraph 8).
In Reference to Claim 5#
Stock teaches:
The storage rack cleaning device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the cleaning device comprises at least one rotating brush (not numbered, paragraph 22, line 6) and a motor (14, paragraph 22, lines 5-7) for driving the at least one rotating brush.
In Reference to Claim 8#
Stock teaches:
The storage rack cleaning device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the cleaning device is integrated on and/or in a storage container (9).
In Reference to Claim 9#
Stock teaches:
The storage rack cleaning device as claimed in claim 8, wherein a dirt receptacle (dirt tank 15, paragraph 22, lines 3-4) is formed by the storage container and the storage container has at least one opening (not numbered, opening which allows suction device to draw dirt into the dirt tank) for drawing in impurities from the storage rack (see paragraph 22, lines 3-8).
In Reference to Claim 12#
Stock teaches:
A system (storage rack 1) having a rack serving apparatus (2) and a storage rack cleaning device (8) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the rack serving apparatus includes a transport surface (top surface of 12) on which the cleaning device can be arranged, and wherein the cleaning device can be moved away from the transport surface from at least on one side of the rack serving apparatus by a load handler (7) of the rack serving apparatus (see paragraph 21 and Figures 2a-3).
In Reference to Claim 15#
Stock teaches:
An arrangement having a system as claimed in claim 12 and a storage rack (1) that has a plurality of crossbars (containment supports 5) for storing storage goods (6), wherein the storage rack cleaning device can be moved along the crossbars by the load handler of the rack serving apparatus (see paragraph 19, lines 5-9 and Figure 1).
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.
Claim(s) 4, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102014006098 to Stock as applied to claims 2 and 15 above, and further in view of WO 2017/134033 to Hognaland.
In Reference to Claim 4
Stock teaches:
The storage rack cleaning device as claimed in claim 3, comprising the battery.
Stock fails to teach:
A collector connected to the battery, and wherein the collector can be connected to a conductor line in order to charge the battery.
Hognaland teaches:
A storage rack cleaning device (cleaning bin 2) comprising a collector (not shown, charging unit, page 13, line 23) connected to a battery (power source 18), and wherein the collector can be connected to a conductor line (not shown, wires connecting charging unit to external power source to recharge the battery) in order to charge the battery (see page 4, lines 23-28, page 13, lines 20-24 and Figure 6a).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the storage rack cleaning device of Stock by adding a collector and conductor line as taught by Hognaland as both references are directed to storage rack cleaning devices having batteries, and for the purpose of being able to recharge the battery.
In Reference to Claim 16
Stock teaches:
The arrangement as claimed in claim 15, wherein the cleaning device is operated by a battery (energy storage unit 13).
Stock fails to teach:
The storage rack has a charging position in which the cleaning device can be positioned in order to charge the battery.
Hognaland teaches:
A storage rack cleaning device (cleaning bin 2) comprising a battery (power source 18), and a storage rack (5), wherein the storage rack has a charging position (location of charging unit, see page 13, lines 20-24) in which the cleaning device can be positioned in order to charge the battery (see page 4, lines 23-28, page 13, lines 20-24 and Figure 6a).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of Stock by adding a charging position as taught by Hognaland as both references are directed to storage rack cleaning devices having batteries, and for the purpose of being able to recharge the battery.
In Reference to Claim 17
Stock as modified by Hognaland teaches:
The arrangement as claimed in claim 16.
Hognaland teaches a conductor line (not shown, wires connecting the charging unit to an external power source to recharge the battery) is provided at the charging position to which a collector (not shown, charging unit at the charging position, page 13, line 23) of the cleaning device can be connected. The conductor line and collector are part of the system used to recharge the batteries. Accordingly, these components were necessarily added when adding the charging position in the rejection of claim 16.
Claim(s) 6, 7, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102014006098 to Stock as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US 12,030,091 to Wang.
In Reference to Claim 6
Stock teaches:
The storage rack cleaning device as claimed in claim 2 comprising the fan and the motor.
Stock fails to teach:
An activation switch, wherein the fan and/or the motor are selectively activated by the switch when the device is moved into the storage rack by the load handler.
Wang teaches:
A storage rack cleaning device (cleanup device 2 having cleaning device 20) comprising an activation switch (27), wherein a motor (231, 232) is selectively activated by the switch when the device is moved into a storage rack (stall 5) by a load handler (conveying device 1) (see column 4, line 64 through column 5, line 17, column 6, line 62 through column 7, line 20, and Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the storage rack cleaning device of Stock by adding an activation switch which selectively activates the motor when the device is moved into the storage rack as taught by Wang as both references are directed to cleaning devices for storage racks, and for the purpose of being able to automatically begin the cleaning process and shorten cleaning time (column 5, lines 8-12 of Wang).
In Reference to Claim 7
Stock as modified by Wang teaches:
The storage rack cleaning device as claimed in claim 6, wherein the switch is configured to be activated when the device is moved over a crossbar (horizontal beam of stall 5 having second positioning portions 53 of Wang) of the storage rack (column 5, lines 18-35 of Wang).
In Reference to Claim 11
Stock teaches:
The storage rack cleaning device of claim 1, wherein the rack serving apparatus comprises a shuttle (12) (paragraph 21).
Stock fails to teach:
The load handler of the shuttle comprises at least one telescopic arm.
Wang teaches:
A storage rack cleaning device (cleanup device 2 having cleaning device 20) comprising a rack serving apparatus (conveying device 1) comprising a shuttle (carrying platform 12) and a load handler of the shuttle comprises at least one telescopic arm (conveying arm 11) (see and Figures 3 and 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the storage rack cleaning device of Stock by adding at least one telescopic arm to the shuttle as taught by Wang as both references are directed to storage rack cleaning devices which are moved by load handlers, and for the purpose of being able to further control where the cleaning device is moved.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 13, and 14 are 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to teach the cleaning device comprises two segments that can be activated in a mutually independent manner, wherein each of the two segments has its own fan and filter as recited in claim 10. Stock fails to teach the cleaning device has two segments which are independently operated.
The prior art of record fails to teach a brush is attached to the load handler as recited in claim 13. While Stock, Hognaland, and Wang all teach a load handler, none of the cited prior art teaches a brush for the load handler. While the cleaning devices of the prior art have brushes, the load handlers themselves do not.
Claim 14 depends from claim 13 and contains its limitations and therefore would be allowable for the same reason.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2018/0037411 to Lindbo et al teaches a storage rack cleaning device having a rack serving apparatus and a load handler.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON GREGORY DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3289. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8:00-5:00, F: 8:00-12:00.
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, Nathan Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JASON G DAVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745