DETAILED ACTION
This application includes independent claims 1, 15, and 16; and dependent claims 2, 3, 5-7, and 9-14.
The Preliminary Amendment has been entered.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:”304”, “404”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
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 § 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.
Claims 14 and 16 are 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 14 recites the limitation "the second sensor". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 16 recites double inclusions of “a storage container”, “a column”, “a frame structure”, “an automated storage and retrieval system”, “a first sensor”, and “a first guide pin”.
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.
Independent claim 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shi (CN 110606365). Shi discloses a container handling vehicle for handling a storage container in an automated storage and retrieval system, wherein the container handling vehicle comprises: a vehicle body (“shuttle vehicle”); a container handler for handling the storage container (9) relative to the vehicle body; wherein the container handler comprises: a lifting frame (11) vertically movable relative to the vehicle body; a first guide pin (51) protruding downwardly from the lifting frame for guiding the lifting frame relative to the storage container; a gripper element (21) protruding downwardly from the lifting frame for gripping the storage container; wherein the first guide pin comprises a first sensor (54) for sensing the position of the lifting frame relative to the storage container.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 9, 13, 14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newbold et al. (US 2024/0092570) in view of Shi (CN 110606365).
Regarding independent claim 1 and dependent claim 5, Newbold discloses a container handler (31) for handling a storage container (9, 50) in a column (see Fig. 3) of a frame structure (1) of an automated storage and retrieval system, wherein the container handler comprises: a lifting frame (101) which is arranged for vertical movement within the column of the frame structure; a first guide pin (140) protruding downwardly from the lifting frame for guiding the lifting frame vertically within the column of the frame structure relative to the storage container (50); a gripper element (150) protruding downwardly from the lifting frame for gripping the storage container; a first sensor (114) for sensing the position of the lifting frame relative to the storage container; the container handler comprises a control system provided in communication with the first sensor (see at least para. 0158); wherein the control system is controlling the vertical movement of the lifting frame and is controlling the gripper element based on a signal received from the first sensor (see at least para. 0158); wherein the control system is configured to start the movement of the gripper element before the lifting frame is in physical contact with the storage container based on the signal received from the first sensor (see at least para. 0158).
Newbold discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 5, but it does not disclose that the first guide pin comprises the first sensor provided at a vertical distance below the lifting frame. Rather, Newbold discloses that the sensor is mounted on the peripheral wall of the lifting frame immediately adjacent to the first guide pin. However, Shi discloses a similar device which includes a lifting frame (11) having first guide pin (51) comprising a first sensor (54) provided at a vertical distance below the lifting frame (see Fig. 7) for the purpose of providing a highly accurate indication of the position of a gripping assembly relative to a container to be lifted. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify Newbold by having the first guide pin comprise the first sensor provided at a vertical distance below the lifting frame, as disclosed by Shi, for the purpose of providing a highly accurate indication of the position of a gripping assembly relative to a container to be lifted.
Regarding independent claim 16, Newbold discloses a method for handling a storage container (9, 50) in a column (see Fig. 1) of a frame structure (1) of an automated storage and retrieval system, a container handler (31) for handling a storage container in a column of a frame structure of an automated storage and retrieval system is used to perform the method, wherein the container handler comprises :a lifting frame (101) which is arranged for vertical movement within the column of the frame structure; a first guide pin (140) protruding downwardly from the lifting frame for guiding the lifting frame vertically within the column of the frame structure relative to the storage container (50); a gripper element (150) protruding downwardly from the lifting frame for gripping the storage container; a first sensor (114) for sensing the position of the lifting frame relative to the storage container; the container handler comprises a control system provided in communication with the first sensor (see at least para. 0158); wherein the control system is controlling the vertical movement of the lifting frame and is controlling the gripper element based on a signal received from the first sensor (see at least paras. 0158-0159); wherein the control system is configured to start the movement of the gripper element before the lifting frame is in physical contact with the storage container based on the signal received from the first sensor (see at least para. 0158-0159); wherein the method comprises sensing the position of the lifting frame relative to the storage container by means of a first sensor (see at least paras. 0158-0159); and controlling a vertical movement of the lifting frame based on a signal received from the first sensor (see at least paras. 0158-0159).
Newbold discloses all the limitations of claim 16, but it does not disclose that the first guide pin comprises the first sensor provided at a vertical distance below the lifting frame. Rather, Newbold discloses that the sensor is mounted on the peripheral wall of the lifting frame immediately adjacent to the first guide pin. However, Shi discloses a similar device which includes a lifting frame (11) having first guide pin (51) comprising a first sensor (54) provided at a vertical distance below the lifting frame (see Fig. 7) for the purpose of providing a highly accurate indication of the position of a gripping assembly relative to a container to be lifted. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify Newbold by having the first guide pin comprise the first sensor provided at a vertical distance below the lifting frame, as disclosed by Shi, for the purpose of providing a highly accurate indication of the position of a gripping assembly relative to a container to be lifted.
Regarding dependent claims 2, 3, 7, 9, 13, and 14, Newbold discloses that the first sensor is a non-contact sensor (see para. 0158). The first sensor is a capacitive sensor, an ultra-sonic sensor or an optical sensor (see para. 0158). The control system is configured to decelerate the lowering of the lifting frame down towards the storage container based on the signal received from the first sensor (see at least paras. 0158-0159). The container handler comprises a top structure (see Figs. 5 and 8) and an electric motor (see at least para. 0103) for moving the lifting frame vertically relative to the top structure. The first sensor is directed towards a central axis of the lifting frame (see at least Fig. 7). The lifting frame is adapted to be received at least partially within the top structure, wherein a second sensor (see at least para. 0118) is directed away from a central axis of the lifting frame.
Regarding claim 6, Newbold discloses that the container handler comprises four first guide pins (140) protruding downwardly from the lifting frame for guiding the lifting frame vertically within the column of the frame structure relative to the storage container; where the frame comprises two first sensors (114, see Fig. 7) for sensing the position of the lifting frame relative to the storage container. As noted above, Newbold discloses all the limitations of the claims, but it does not disclose that at least two of the first guide pin comprise first sensors. Rather, Newbold discloses that the first sensors are mounted on the peripheral wall of the lifting frame immediately adjacent to the first guide pins. However, Shi discloses a similar device which includes a lifting frame (11) having four first guide pins (51) at least two of the first guide pins comprising first sensors (54) for the purpose of providing a highly accurate indication of the position of a gripping assembly relative to a container to be lifted. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify Newbold by having at least two of the first guide pins comprise first sensors, as disclosed by Shi, for the purpose of providing a highly accurate indication of the position of a gripping assembly relative to a container to be lifted.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Benfold et al. (US 2023/0116001) and Kaouche (US 2023/0356387) disclose automated storage and retrieval systems with lifting and lowering devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK HEWEY MACKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6916. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 9-5.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached at 571-272-7805. 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.
/PATRICK H MACKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653