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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-11, 18, and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ingram-Tedd, et al., Intl. Pat. Pub. No. WO 2019/068775 (For. Pat. Citation 7 of the IDS filed 10/12/2023).
As per claim 1, Ingram-Tedd teaches a system including one or more transport devices, the system comprising:
a first one of a guide means or a drive means connected to a surface (Abst.; Figs. 12a-12b; pg. 30, lines 8-31); and
a first transport device adjacent to the surface and including an other of the guide means or drive means, the drive means being configured to interact with the guide means to effect movement of one of the first transport device or the surface relative to the other of the first transport device or the surface (pg. 30, lines 8-31) and
the guide means being configured to change between an active state in which it is securely engaged with the drive means to effect movement of the first transport device or the surface, and a passive state in which the drive means is not engaged, allowing the first transport device and the surface to be separated (pg. 10, lines 28-35; pg. 30, lines 8-31).
As per claim 2, Ingram-Tedd teaches claim 1 as above. Ingram-Tedd further teaches the first transport device comprises: the drive means, and the surface comprises: the guide means, and wherein the surface forms part of a second transport device (Figs. 12a-12b; pg. 30, lines 8-31).
As per claim 3, Ingram-Tedd teaches claim 2 as above. Ingram-Tedd further teaches the first transport device comprises: a guide means configured to interact with a drive means of an adjacent transport device to direct movement of the first transport device or the adjacent transport device within a cluster (Figs. 12a-12b; pg. 30, lines 8-31; see also Fig. 11—cluster).
As per claim 4, Ingram-Tedd teaches claim 2 as above. Ingram-Tedd further teaches the second transport device comprises; a drive means for moving the second transport device or an adjacent transport device within a cluster (Figs. 12a-12b; pg. 30, lines 8-31; see also Fig. 11—cluster).
As per claim 5, Ingram-Tedd teaches claim 4 as above. Ingram-Tedd further teaches each transport device of the plurality of transport devices has a cuboid shape (Fig. 11), and wherein a drive means is provided on two adjacent side facets, and a guide means is provided on a remaining two adjacent side facets (Figs. 12a-12b; pg. 30, lines 8-31).
As per claim 6, Ingram-Tedd teaches claim 5 as above. Ingram-Tedd further teaches each transport device of the plurality of transport devices is positioned within the cluster in a same orientation (Fig. 11) such that at least one side facet associated with a drive means of any one transport device which has at least one neighbouring transport device opposes a side facet associated with a guide means of a neighbouring transport device (Figs. 12a-12b; pg. 30, lines 8-31).
As per claim 7, Ingram-Tedd teaches claim 1 as above. Ingram-Tedd further teaches the guide means comprises: a retaining means to maintain engagement between the guide means and the drive means whilst the guide means in the active state (pgs. 10, lines 25-35; pg. 29, lines 17-35).
As per claim 8, Ingram-Tedd teaches claim 1 as above. Ingram-Tedd further teaches the guide means is configured to be held in one of at least a first or second position when in the active state, the first and second positions being arranged to direct movement of the first transport device or the surface through a cluster in a first and second direction respectively (Figs. 12a-12b; pg. 30, lines 8-31; see also Fig. 11—cluster).
As per claim 9, Ingram-Tedd teaches claim 8 as above. Ingram-Tedd further teaches the first direction is substantially orthogonal with respect to the second direction (pg. 30, lines 11-13; see also Fig. 17).
As per claim 10, Ingram-Tedd teaches claim 2 as above. Ingram-Tedd further teaches the drive means of the first transport device is configured and arranged to rotatably engage a guide means of the second transport device (pg. 30, lines 9-10; pg. 31, lines 15-22).
As per claim 11, Ingram-Tedd teaches claim 10 as above. Ingram-Tedd further teaches each guide means comprises: a rack, and each drive means comprises includes a pinion configured to engage the rack (Fig. 12a; pg. 10, line 29; pg. 31, lines 2-3).
As per claim 18, Ingram-Tedd teaches claim 1 as above. Ingram-Tedd further teaches each transport device of the plurality of transport devices comprises: a vertical alignment means for aligning itself with respect to a neighbouring transport device within its vertical neighbourhood (Figs. 2a-2b and accompanying description).
As per claim 20, Ingram-Tedd teaches claim 1 as above. Ingram-Tedd further teaches at least one transport device of the plurality of transport devices comprises: a greater or smaller volume when compared to other transport devices (pg. 63, line 8).
As per claim 21, Ingram-Tedd teaches claim 1 as above. Ingram-Tedd further teaches each transport device of the plurality of transport devices is configured to be individually addressable (pg. 23, lines 23-24).
As per claim 22, Ingram-Tedd teaches claim 1 as above. Ingram-Tedd further teaches each transport device of the plurality of transport devices comprises: a receiving space for holding inventory (pg. 10, line 22).
As per claim 23, Ingram-Tedd teaches claim 1 as above. Ingram-Tedd further teaches the surface is fixed (pg. 59, lines 29-30).
As per claim 24, Ingram-Tedd teaches a transport device comprising:
at least one of a first guide means or a first drive means configured for engaging with a second drive means or a second guide means of a surface, the first drive means or the first guide means being configured to effect movement of the first transport device relative to the surface (Figs. 12a-12b; pg. 30, lines 8-31); and
the first drive means and/or first guide means being configured to change between an active state in which it is securely engaged to effect movement of the first transport device, and a passive state in which the first transport device and the surface are separated (Figs. 12a-12b; pg. 30, lines 8-31).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ingram-Tedd, et al. in view of Iwata, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2018/0339858 (Reference A of the attached PTO-892).
As per claim 12, Ingram-Tedd teaches claim 11 as above. Ingram-Tedd does not explicitly teach the rack is configured to be moveable so as to move the guide means between the active and passive states; which is taught by Iwata (Fig. 10; ¶¶ 0064-65). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element because it is merely a combination of old elements in the art of transportable containers. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
As per claim 13, Ingram-Tedd in view of Iwata teaches claim 12 as above. Iwata further teaches the rack is configured to be rotatable about a rotational axis parallel to an axis about which the pinion rotates (Fig. 10); which would have been obvious to incorporate for the same reasons as the elements in claim 12 above.
As per claim 14, Ingram-Tedd in view of Iwata teaches claim 13 as above. Iwata further teaches the rotational axes of the rack and pinion are offset with respect to each other (Fig. 10); which would have been obvious to incorporate for the same reasons as the elements in claim 12 above.
As per claim 15, Ingram-Tedd in view of Iwata teaches claim 14 as above. Iwata further teaches the rotational axis of the rack is located on a vertex of a notional square circumscribing a circumference of the pinion (Fig. 10); which would have been obvious to incorporate for the same reasons as the elements in claim 12 above.
As per claim 16, Ingram-Tedd in view of Iwata teaches claim 15 as above. Ingram-Tedd further teaches the rack comprises: fixed sections extending in the first and second directions (Figs. 12a, 15).
As per claim 17, Ingram-Tedd in view of Iwata teaches claim 15 as above. Ingram-Tedd further teaches a retaining means to maintain engagement between the guide means and the drive means (pg. 31, lines 1-22), and including two walls positioned either side of the rack defining a channel into which the pinion is received when the guide means is in the active state (Fig. 9b, 14).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ingram-Tedd, et al. in view of Heide, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0047114 (Reference B of the attached PTO-892).
As per claim 19, Ingram-Tedd teaches claim 18 as above. Ingram-Tedd further teaches the vertical alignment means comprises: a recessed area formed in a top facet, and a protrusion extending from a bottom facet, the recessed area of any one transport device being configured to receive the protrusion of an upper neighbouring transport device so as to ensure vertical alignment of the transport devices (Figs. 2a-2b and accompanying description). Ingram-Tedd does not explicitly teach the protrusion is a retractable post; which is taught by Heide (¶¶ 0011-16). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element because it is merely a substitution of the retractable posts in Heide for the protrusions in Ingram-Tedd. Both are shown in the art of transport container storage as means to securely align containers, and one of ordinary skill n the art would have recognized that this substitution could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results (i.e., a system as in Ingram-Tedd Figs. 2a-2b that replaces the protrusion 13 with one or more retractable posts).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hanel, U.S. Pat. No. 8,920,098 (Reference C of the attached PTO-892) relates to a transport device.
Clark, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0114811 (Reference D of the attached PTO-892) relates to a transport device.
Kilibarda, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0101790 (Reference E of the attached PTO-892) relates to a transport device.
Whelan, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0399060 (Reference F of the attached PTO-892) relates to a transport device.
Gravelle, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2019/0375590 (Reference G of the attached PTO-892) relates to a transport device.
Bhardwaj, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 11,299,348 (Reference H of the attached PTO-892) relates to a transport device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL VETTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1366. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
/DANIEL VETTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628