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 .
Status of Claims
Office Action is in response to the Applicant's amendments and remarks filed9/22/2023. Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 10-11, 13, 18, 23, 26-28, 32, 36-37, 43, 45-46, 49-50 and 54-55 were Restricted. Applicant elects Group I: Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 10-11, 13, 18, 23, 37, 43, 45, 49-50 and 54-55. Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 10-11, 13, 18, 23, 37, 43, 45, 49-50 and 54-55 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/22/2023 and 3/28/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-2, 7 and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wend et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20150274446 - hereinafter Wend) in view of Ruth et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20190300259 - hereinafter Ruth).
Re. claim 1, Wend teaches:
An automated storage and retrieval system for managing the contents of a storage area in which garment-on-hanger (GOH) items are stored, the system comprising:
an automated storage/retrieval apparatus that is configured to hold and manipulate a GOH item, and that is configured to place a GOH item transported from the processing area in any of a plurality of designated storage locations of the storage area, and and/or to retrieve a GOH item from any of a plurality of designated storage locations in the storage area to be subsequently transported to the processing area. [Wend; Fig. 4 and ¶36-¶39 shows an automated storage/retrieval apparatus for GOH items].
Wend doesn’t teach, Ruth teaches:
an autonomous transport vehicle that is configured for automated movement between a processing location away from the storage area and a predetermined region of the storage area, and that transports GOH items between the processing area and the storage area; and [Ruth; ¶47 shows use of automated transport vehicle].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Ruth in the system of Wend, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 2, Wend in view of Ruth teaches system of claim 1.
Wend teaches:
Transport vehicle; [Wend; Fig. 4 and ¶36-¶39 shows an automated storage/retrieval apparatus for GOH items].
Wend doesn’t teach, Ruth teaches:
the storage/retrieval apparatus; [Ruth; ¶47 shows use of automated transport vehicle].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Ruth in the system of Wend, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 7, Wend in view of Ruth teaches system of claim 1.
Wend teaches:
further comprising a plurality of standardized mounting hooks from which the hangers of the GOH items are suspended, wherein the storage/retrieval apparatus holds the GOH items by the mounting hooks. [Wend; Fig. 4 and ¶36-¶39].
Re. claim 55, Wend in view of Ruth teaches system of claim 1.
Wend teaches:
removing the GOH items from the designated storage area with an the automated storage/retrieval apparatus that can hold and manipulate each of said GOH items; placing, with the automated storage/retrieval apparatus, the GOH items removed from the designated storage area on an the autonomous transport vehicle configured for automated movement between the processing location and a predetermined region of the storage area; [Wend; Fig. 4 and ¶36-¶39 shows an automated storage/retrieval apparatus for GOH items].
Wend doesn’t teach, Ruth teaches:
transporting the GOH items with the autonomous transport vehicle from the designated storage area to the processing location; and unloading the GOH items from the transport vehicle at the processing location. [Ruth; ¶47 shows use of automated transport vehicle].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Ruth in the system of Wend, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 3, 11, 13, 37, 45 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wend in view of Ruth in view of Yamagishi et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20230270905 - hereinafter Yamagishi).
Re. claim 3, Wend in view of Ruth teaches system of claim 1.
Wend doesn’t teach, Yamagishi teaches:
wherein the storage/retrieval apparatus is configured to remove GOH items from the transport vehicle and place them in the designated storage locations, and and/or to remove GOH items from the designated storage locations and place them on the transport vehicle. [Yamagishi; Fig. 7 shows a transport vehicle with an arm to pick up and place items].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Yamagishi in the system of Wend, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 11, Wend in view of Ruth teaches system of claim 1.
Wend doesn’t teach, Yamagishi teaches:
wherein the storage/retrieval apparatus is an autonomous vehicle capable of independent movement. [Yamagishi; Fig. 7].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Yamagishi in the system of Wend, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 13, Wend in view of Ruth teaches system of claim 1.
Wend doesn’t teach, Yamagishi teaches:
wherein the storage/retrieval apparatus comprises a head from which extends a picker arm with which a GOH item is held and manipulated. [Yamagishi; Fig. 7].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Yamagishi in the system of Wend, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 37, Wend in view of Ruth teaches system of claim 1.
Wend teaches:
the method comprising:
loading the GOH items at a processing location away from the storage area onto an the autonomous transport vehicle that is configured for automated movement between the processing location and a predetermined region of the storage area; transporting the GOH items with the autonomous transport vehicle from the processing location to the predetermined region of the storage area; removing the GOH items from the autonomous transport vehicle with an the automated storage/retrieval apparatus that can hold and manipulate each of said GOH items; and [Wend; Fig. 4 and ¶36-¶39 shows an automated storage/retrieval apparatus for GOH items].
Wend doesn’t teach, Yamagishi teaches:
placing, with the automated storage/retrieval apparatus, the GOH items removed from the autonomous transport vehicle in any of a said plurality of designated storage locations of the storage area. [Yamagishi; Fig. 7].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Yamagishi in the system of Wend, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 45, Wend in view of Ruth in view of Yamagishi teaches system of claim 37.
Wend doesn’t teach, Yamagishi teaches:
wherein removing the GOH items from the autonomous transport vehicle and placing the GOH items in a designated storage location comprises holding and manipulating the GOH items with a picker arm mounted on a head of the storage/retrieval apparatus. [Yamagishi; Fig. 7].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Yamagishi in the system of Wend, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 49, Wend in view of Ruth in view of Yamagishi teaches system of claim 45.
Wend doesn’t teach, Yamagishi teaches:
wherein the GOH items are suspended by standardized mounting hooks and wherein holding and manipulating the GOH items comprises capturing one of said mounting hooks with a receptacle at a distal end of the picker arm. [Wend; Fig. 4 and ¶36-¶39].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Yamagishi in the system of Wend, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wend in view of Ruth in view of Heggebo et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20230406628 - hereinafter Heggebo).
Re. claim 5, Wend in view of Ruth teaches system of claim 1.
Wend doesn’t teach, Heggebo teaches:
wherein the storage area has multiple vertical levels with designated storage locations on each level, and wherein the system further comprises an elevator that can support the transport vehicle or the storage/retrieval apparatus, and that is configured to move at least one of the transport vehicle and the storage/retrieval apparatus between said vertical levels. [Heggebo; ¶88 shows an elevator].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Heggebo in the system of Wend, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 10, Wend in view of Ruth teaches system of claim 1.
Wend doesn’t teach, Heggebo teaches:
wherein the transport vehicle has a battery and a wheeled base powered by at least one electric motor. [Heggebo; ¶135].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Heggebo in the system of Wend, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 18 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wend in view of Ruth in view of Yamagishi in view of Ito et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20190250614 - hereinafter Ito).
Re. claim 18, Wend in view of Ruth in view of Yamagishi teaches system of claim 13.
Wend doesn’t teach, Ito teaches:
further comprising a pair plurality of blades that extend from the head of the storage/retrieval apparatus, the blades being movable relative to each other in a horizontal direction such that the blades may be inserted to either side of a first of said designated storage locations and moved apart from each other so as to displace GOH items stored in designated storage locations to either side of said first designated storage location prior to placing a GOH item in the first designated storage location or retrieving a GOH item from the first designated storage location. [Ito; ¶158].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Ito in the system of Wend, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 50, Wend in view of Ruth in view of Yamagishi teaches system of claim 37.
Wend doesn’t teach, Ito teaches:
wherein the storage/retrieval apparatus comprises a pair plurality of blades that are movable relative to each other in a horizontal direction and wherein placing the GOH items further comprises inserting the blades to either side of a first of said designated storage locations and moving the blades apart from each other so as to displace GOH items stored in designated storage locations to either side of said first designated storage location prior to placing a GOH item in the first designated storage location. [Ito; ¶158].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Ito in the system of Wend, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wend in view of Ruth in view of Garifi et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20230219761 - hereinafter Garifi).
Re. claim 23, Wend in view of Ruth teaches system of claim 1.
Wend doesn’t teach, Garifi teaches:
further comprising a system of rails distributed throughout the storage area upon which the transport vehicle travels. [Garifi; ¶96].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Garifi in the system of Wend, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wend in view of Ruth in view of Yamagishi in view of Helsel et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20210101748 - hereinafter Helsel).
Re. claim 43, Wend in view of Ruth in view of Yamagishi teaches system of claim 37.
Wend doesn’t teach, Helsel teaches:
wherein the storage/retrieval apparatus is an autonomous vehicle capable of independent movement. [Helsel; ¶54].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Helsel in the system of Wend, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 54 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wend in view of Ruth in view of Yamagishi in view of Garifi.
Re. claim 54, Wend in view of Ruth in view of Yamagishi teaches system of claim 37.
Wend doesn’t teach, Garifi teaches:
wherein transporting the GOH items with the autonomous transport vehicle comprises moving the transport vehicle along a system of rails distributed throughout the storage area. [Garifi; ¶96].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Garifi in the system of Wend, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)272-7545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 7pm.
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 Uber can be reached at 571-270-3923. 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.
/IBRAHIM N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628