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
Claims 18-30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 30 January 2026.
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) 1-13, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lindbo et al. (US 2021/0032026).
Regarding claim 1, Lindbo et al. teaches an automated load handling system, comprising;
A) first and second automated storage and retrieval systems, 502 and 502a, each of the first and the second automated storage and retrieval system systems including:
i) a grid framework structure including:
a) a track system including a first set of parallel tracks, and a second set of parallel tracks running transversely to the first set in a substantially horizontal plane, and arranged in a grid pattern having a plurality of grid cells, each grid cell defining a grid opening defined by a pair of adjacent tracks of the first set of parallel tracks and a pair of adjacent tracks of the second set of parallel tracks, see figure 10;
b) a plurality of storage columns, each storage column being configured and arranged to store a respective stack of storage containers for storing one or more items, wherein each stack of storage containers is located beneath the track system such that each stack of storage containers occupies a single grid cell, see figure 10;
ii) a plurality of robotic load handling devices, 30, operative on the track system and configured for lifting and moving one or more storage containers from a stack;
B) at least one port column, 131, extending downwardly from a grid opening of the track system of each of the first and the second automated storage and retrieval systems through which a respective robotic load handling device operative on the track system is able to drop off and pick up one or more storage containers, 10 and 10a; and
C) at least one transfer system configured to transfer one or more storage containers or one or more items from the storage containers from the at least one port column of the first automated storage and retrieval system to the at least one port column of the second automated storage and retrieval system, see figure 8b, where the picking station, 114, reads on the transfer system and item can be transferred between containers 10 and 10a at the picking station; and
wherein the grid opening of the track system of the first automated storage and retrieval system is a different size relative to the grid opening of the track system of the second automated storage and retrieval system such that the grid framework structure of the first automated storage and retrieval system is configured to store storage containers that are differently sized to the storage containers stored in the grid framework structure of the second automated storage and retrieval system, see figure 10.
Regarding claim 2, Lindbo et al. teaches the grid opening of the track system of the first automated storage and retrieval system, 502, is smaller than the grid opening of the track system of the second automated storage and retrieval system, 502a, such that the grid framework structure of the first automated storage and retrieval system, is configured to store smaller storage containers than the storage containers stored in the grid framework structure of the second automated storage and retrieval system.
Regarding claim 3, Lindbo et al. teaches the at least one port column of each of the grid framework structures of the first and the second automated storage and retrieval systems comprises:
an inlet port column for receiving one or more storage containers transferred from the at least one transfer system, see paragraphs 0088-0090; and an outlet port column for dropping off one or more storage containers to the least one transfer system, see figure 8A.
Regarding claim 4, Lindbo et al. teaches the at least one transfer system comprises:
at least one conveyor system comprising at least one conveyor unit, 106, extending from the outlet port column of the grid framework structure of the first or second automated storage and retrieval system to the inlet port column of the grid framework structure of the first or second automated storage and retrieval system so as to transport one or more storage containers into and out of their respective grid framework structures, see paragraphs 0088 through 0090.
Regarding claim 5, Lindbo et al. teaches the at least one transfer system comprises:
at least one conveyor system comprising at least one conveyor unit, 106, extending from the at least one port column of the grid framework structure of the first automated storage and retrieval system to the at least one port column of the grid framework structure of the second automated storage and retrieval system so as to transport one or more storage containers from the first automated storage and retrieval system to the second automated storage and retrieval system, where storage containers are transferred along backline conveyor 106, from the first storage and retrieval system, 502, to and past the second storage and retrieval system, 502a, and back into the storage system, see paragraphs 0088-0090.
Regarding claim 6, Lindbo et al. teaches the at least one transfer system comprises:
at least one conveyor system comprising a first conveyor system arranged for transporting one or more storage container into and out of the grid framework structure of the first automated storage and retrieval system; and
a second conveyor system arranged for transporting one or more storage container into and out of the grid framework structure of the second automated storage and retrieval system, see paragraphs 0087+.
Regarding claim 7, Lindbo et al. teaches the at least one conveyor system comprises:
an entry conveyor unit;
an exit conveyor unit; and
a transfer conveyor unit, the exit conveyor unit being configured and arranged to transport a storage container in a first direction to the transfer conveyor unit from the outlet port column, and the entry conveyor unit being configured and arranged to transport a storage container in a second direction to the inlet port column from the transfer conveyor unit, see paragraphs 0087+, and figure 8a and 10.
Regarding claim 8, Lindbo et al. teaches the transfer conveyor, 108, unit is configured and arranged to transport a storage container in a third direction, see figure 1.
Regarding claim 9, Lindbo et al. teaches the exit conveyor unit and the entry conveyor unit are configured and arranged such that the first direction of the exit conveyor unit is opposite and parallel to the second direction of the entry conveyor unit and wherein the third direction of the transfer conveyor unit, is substantially orthogonal to both the first direction of the exit conveyor unit and the second direction of the entry conveyor unit, see paragraphs 0087+.
Regarding claim 10, Lindbo et al. teaches the at least one transfer system comprises: a buffer zone, 132, configured and arranged for holding one or more storage containers at the transfer conveyor unit of the first and/or second automated storage and retrieval system, see figure 8a.
Regarding claim 11, Lindbo et al. teaches the at least one transfer system comprises: a pick station, 114, configured for receiving storage containers dropped off from the at least one port column of the grid framework structure of the first automated storage and retrieval system.
Regarding claim 12, Lindbo et al. teaches the pick station comprises: a robotic arm configured for transferring one or more items from one or more storage containers from the first automated storage and retrieval system to one or more storage containers at the transfer conveyor unit of the second automated storage and retrieval system, see paragraphs 0009 and 0087, which teaches manually or robotically moving items.
Regarding claim 13, Lindbo et al. teaches the pick station comprises: a tilting mechanism configured for tilting the storage container; and a slide adjacent the tilting mechanism configured for capturing one or more items exiting the tilting mechanism, see tilting conveyor shown in figures 8a through 8c.
Regarding claim 16, Lindbo et al. teaches the at least one transfer system comprises:
at least one assembly station, 114, configured for assembling one or more items from one or more storage containers from the first automated storage and retrieval system.
Regarding claim 1, Lindbo et al. teaches each load handling device, 30, of the plurality of load handling devices of the first and second automated storage and retrieval systems comprises: a lifting mechanism including a grabber device configures to releasably engage with a storage container and a winch mechanism configured to lift the storage container above the track system, see figure 7c and 8a.
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.
Claims 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lindbo et al. (US 2021/0032026) in view of Thomas et al. (US 2024/0025642).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding claim 14, Lindbo et al. does not teach storage containers of the first automated storage and retrieval system comprise which include shallow trays mounted on spacing means to vertically space the shallow trays from one another in the stacks in the grid framework structure of the first automated storage and retrieval system.
Thomas et al. teaches such a storage and retrieval system, see figure 3 and 7. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provided shallow trays mounted on spacing means, as taught by Thomas et al. in the storage and retrieval system of Lindbo et al. in order to achieve the predictable result of enabling access to the contents of a storage containers, even when it is not the top storage container in a stack.
Regarding claim 15, Thomas et al. further teaches each of the shallow trays comprises; a bottom wall; and an upwardly extending rim comprising including one or more cutouts, configured for through which one or more items inside the shallow tray can to be accessed when the shallow trays are stored in stacks in the grid framework structure of the first automated storage and retrieval system, see figure 800.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Prior art cited on the PTO-892 and not relied upon is included to show additional examples of load handling systems and the state of the prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAITLIN S JOERGER whose telephone number is (571)272-6938. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5 (CST).
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at (571)270-5565. 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.
/KAITLIN S JOERGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
6 March 2026