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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicants’ submission filed on 14 August 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by US 2003/0172612 A1 to Simmons or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2003/0172612 A1 to Simmons in view of WO 2019/101367 A1 to Austrheim.
Regarding claim 1, Simmons discloses a framework structure (Fig.1) of an automated storage and retrieval system (capable of being used as an automated storage system), comprising: a plurality of upright members (32, Fig. 1 and 2) arranged in rows defining storage columns (column of Fig. 1 formed by the upright stacks) configured to receive stacks of storage containers (capable of receiving stacks of containers), the upright members supporting a rail system (horizontal members of the structure, Fig.1 and 8) comprising first and second sets of parallel rails (Fig. 1 and 8, horizontal rail portions), a bracing arrangement comprising: a plurality of twin-post upright members (the uprights, Fig.1) arranged in at least one row of the framework structure, the twin-post upright members comprising a pair of upright member sections (46, 48) arranged with a space therebetween (Fig.2), the upright member sections comprising elongated corner guide profiles (46 and 48 are corner shaped profiles) having a shape adapted to receiver and vertically guide corresponding corners of a storage container (corners are capable of guiding storage containers), wherein at least one elongated bracing member (82, 84) is connected at a first end to a first upper connection point (Fig. 1 and 8) and at a second end to a second lower connection point (Fig.1 and 8) in order to brace the framework structure, and wherein each elongated bracing member is arranged to pass diagonally through the spaces between vertical sections of the pairs of upright member sections (Fig.8) of multiple adjacent twin-post upright members arranged in the at least one row.
Simmons teaches a framework which is capable of being used as an automated storage and retrieval system, which can further define storage columns which can handle traveling vehicles of an automated storage and retrieval system.
If one were to argue that Simmons does not disclose the combination of elements or that the framework of Simmons cannot be used as an automated storage and retrieval system, then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the upright members and bracing arrangement to form the system of Austrheim so to form a system with increased structural integrity and strength and also a system which allows the bracing members to extend through upright members, keeping all of the strengthening members within the framework skeleton of the system.
Regarding claim 2, Simmons discloses wherein at least one row is arranged at a periphery of the framework structure (Fig. 1 of Simmons; also Austrheim in Fig. 11/12).
Regarding claim 8, Simmons discloses a twin-post upright member of a framework structure of an automated storage and retrieval system, comprising a pair of upright member sections (46 and 48, Fig.2) separated by spacers (42, Fig.4), so as to create a space between the upright member sections (Fig. 3, 8, 10, 15), the upright member sections further comprising elongated corner guide profiles (Fig.2) arranged to vertically guide a container in a storage column defined by four upright members (capable of guiding a container within).
Claim(s) 3-6 and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2003/0172612 A1 to Simmons in view of WO 2019/101367 A1 to Austrheim further in view of US 2008/0086963 A1 to Proffitt Jr.
Regarding claim 3, Simmons discloses wherein the bracing member is arranged diagonally (82, 84), Simmons discloses connections points of the diagonal bracing members near the floor or near the rails, but does not disclose with the lower connection point being a floor of facility in which the framework structure is erected, and/or with the upper connection point being a rail of a rail system upon which vehicles of the automated storage and retrieval system operate.
Proffitt Jr. discloses diagonal bracing members (60, Fig.10) which span through the upright members (24’) and connected at the floor (10’ on 31) and at a rail (10’ on 33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the framework of Simmons with tension diagonal members which span from floor to top rail as taught by Proffitt Jr. so to provide shear bracing the structure of Simmons which spans the entire plane of the framing system and increases the strength of the framework.
Regarding claim 4, Proffitt Jr. disclose wherein the bracing member is connected to the rail system by a connection plate (10’, Fig.11), wherein a width of said connection plate does not exceed a width of the rails of the rail system.
Regarding claim 5, Simmons does not specifically disclose wherein the elongated bracing member comprises tensioning means.
Proffitt Jr. discloses wherein the bracing members include tensioning means (86, Fig.10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the bracing elements of Simmons with tensioning means as taught by Proffitt Jr. so to adjust the shear bracing of the framework and to increase the structural rigidity of the framework system.
Regarding claim 6, wherein the tensioning means is a turnbuckle (86).
Regarding claim 10, Simmons discloses a method for bracing a framework structure, comprising the steps of: arranging a plurality of twin-post upright members (Fig. 1 and 2) of at least one row of upright members of a framework structure, each comprising a pair of upright member sections (46, 48, Fig.2) separated by spacers (Fig.4), so as to create a space between the upright member sections (Fig.2), the upright member sections further comprising elongated corner guide profiles (Fig.2) having a shape adapted to receive and vertically guide corresponding corners of a storage container (46 and 48 are corner shaped; the upright members are capable of guiding containers in a storage column formed in the same manner as Fig.1), passing the elongated bracing member (82, 84) diagonally through the space between upright member sections of multiple adjacent upright members of the row (Fig.1 and 8).
Simmons teaches a framework which is capable of being used as an automated storage and retrieval system, which can further define storage columns which can handle traveling vehicles of an automated storage and retrieval system.
If one were to argue that Simmons does not disclose the combination of elements or that the framework of Simmons cannot be used as an automated storage and retrieval system, the it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill kin the art to provide the upright members and bracing arrangement to form the system of Austrheim so to form a system with increased structural integrity and strength and also a system which allows the bracing members to extend through upright members, keeping all of the strengthening members within the framework skeleton of the system.
Simmons discloses connections points of the diagonal bracing members near the floor or near the rails, but does not disclose with the first connection point being a floor of facility in which the framework structure is erected, and/or with the second connection point being a rail of a rail system upon which vehicles of the automated storage and retrieval system operate.
Proffitt Jr. discloses diagonal bracing members (60, Fig.10) which span through the upright members (24’) and connected at the floor (10’ on 31) and at a rail (10’ on 33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the framework of Simmons with tension diagonal members which span from floor to top rail as taught by Proffitt Jr. so to provide shear bracing the structure of Simmons which spans the entire plane of the framing system and increases the strength of the framework.
Regarding claim 11, Proffitt Jr. discloses wherein the elongated bracing member comprises tensioning means (86), and the method further comprises the step of tensioning the bracing member (turnbuckle used to increase or decrease tensioning to set the shear resistance).
Regarding claim 12, Simmons discloses wherein at least one row is along a periphery of the framework structure (Fig. 1 of Simmons; also Austrheim in Fig. 11/12).
Regarding claim 13, Proffitt Jr. disclose wherein the bracing member is connected to the rail by a connection plate (10’, Fig.11), wherein the width of said connection plate does not exceed the width of the rails of the rail system.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2003/0172612 A1 to Simmons in view of WO 2019/101367 A1 to Austrheim further in view of JP 6202418 to Abe.
Regarding claim 7, Simmons does not disclose wherein a plurality of bracing members are connected to a hub member.
Abe discloses connecting bracing members to a hub member (142, Fig.4 and 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the structure of Simmons with a hub member as taught by Abe so to provide a means to centralize the connection of the shear members and also provide a means for vibration attenuation in the chance that the structure undergoes large outside forces.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2003/0172612 A1 to Simmons.
Regarding claim 9, Simmons discloses wherein a lowermost spacer has risers or leveling feet (Fig.14) but does not specifically disclose wherein the spacer comprises a hole or slot for engaging a leveling foot device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided holes in the base of the spacer (96) into which adjustable leveling feet can be engaged therefore to provide a well-known means of adjustable leveling feet to the base of the upright framing member, thereby allowing each upright member of the framing structure to be leveled relative to one another.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the teachings of Simmons do not relate to or describe a framework system for an automated storage and retrieval system. This is not found to be persuasive. The claims are written as being directed to a framework structure which is capable of being used within an automated storage system. The claim does not provide anything structural that differs from the framework of the prior art of Simmons. The claims main focus is on a diagonal bracing system for framework, and does not structurally define an automated storage and retrieval framework which differs in any way from the prior art of record used in the rejections above. The newly added amendments simply recite that the upright member sections have a shape adapted to receive and vertically guide storage containers. Again, Simmons clearly shows the upright members (46 and 48) having a shape which will both receive a container and will guide a container vertical is used in this way. Applicant argues that Simmons teaches nuts and bolts within the “recesses” and therefore containers cannot be guided. This is not found to be persuasive. Simmons shows specifically the arrangement of the vertical upright members with nuts and bolts in Figure 3. The embodiment shown in Figure 3 is certainly capable of guiding containers which are to move vertically along the upright members. The claims and disclosure make no mention of sliding freely, engaging the surface of the uprights, etc. The claims simply require an upright member which is shaped to guide a container which Simmons certainly discloses. Simmons may prevent containers from moving in some specific manner as described by Applicant, but the manner of use of container is not part of the written claim.
Applicant further argues that the brace of Simmons does not pass diagonally through the spaces between vertical sections of pairs of upright member sections of multiple adjacent twin-post upright members arranged in at least one row. This is not found to be persuasive. Simmons clearly shows the diagonal brace “arranged to pass diagonally through the spaces between the vertical sections of the pairs of multiple adjacent upright members arranged in at least one row” in Fig.8. Not only does Fig.8 show the diagonal brace passing through adjacent twin post uprights 46 and 52, but the brace will also further pass-through additional uprights on the opposite side of the figure which is cut.
Regarding the combination with Austrheim, Applicant argues that Austrheim teaches separate support members connected to each vertical component. This is in fact true. The combination of Simmons in view of Austrheim was made simply to explain that the framework taught by Simmons can in fact be used in the manner described since the framework is very similar to that of Austrheim. The vertical support posts can replace those used in Austrheim and the framework will function as needed. Simmons does in fact teach the structural limitations of the claims, Austrheim is used to support the use of the framework if one were to continually argue that Simmons could not be used for such an operation. The problem with arguing the use of the framework of Simmons, is that the claims do not require any specific structural limitation that is required for use as a storage or retrieval framework. If the claims provided structural differences between the desired present invention and Simmons, then one could possibly argue that Simmons could not be used in the desired manner. The claims as written require framework having a specific diagonal bracing which is in fact taught by Simmons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN D KWIECINSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-5160. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday from 8:30 am to 4:00 pm.
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, Brian Mattei can be reached at (571) 272-3238. 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.
RDK
/RYAN D KWIECINSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights