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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: page 10 line 5 of the specification includes “3108” but it seems like this should be 310B to consistent with the rest of the specification and the reference characters used therein.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 12 a group of reference characters is present whereas all other instances were removed in the preliminary amendment. While not improper, it seems an effort was made to remove such references throughout the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
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 § 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 1-9 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.
The term “mobile” in regards to the first and second lifting means is unclear and
renders the claims indefinite. It is not clear what the term “mobile” requires as the position of the lifting means seem to be fixed with respect to the rest of the system. Clarification is necessary.
Additionally, it is noted that “mobile lifting means” and just “lifting means” appear to be used interchangeably throughout the claims. This is indefinite as it is not it is not clear if these are referring to the same or different structures.
Claims 5 and 6 both include references to “a first lifting means” and “a second lifting means.” This renders the claims indefinite as both lifting means are already introduced previously and thus articles such as “the” or “said” should be used to reference the previously introduced elements.
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) 1-6 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102013114275 to Grosse in view of US 2016/0152446 to Dudde.
Regarding claim 1 Grosse discloses an automated item storage system comprising: a plurality of automatically guided carriages (4) each capable of transporting an item, and a racking (2) comprising a plurality of superimposed storage levels (11) each comprising an aisle (8) in which the plurality of automatically guided carriages are configured to can circulate and a vertical movement column (6) connecting the plurality of superimposed storage levels and allowing movement of the plurality of automatically guided carriages along this the vertical movement column between an entry/exit level (see figure 1) of items and one of the plurality of superimposed storage levels, or between two of the plurality of superimposed storage levels (see figure 2), said vertical movement column comprising: first mobile lifting means (38/49) configured to move a first automatically guided carriage vertically, and second mobile lifting means (56/54, see figure 2) adjacent to the first lifting means configured to move a second automatically guided carriage vertically independently of the movement of the first automatically guided carriage (para 0056 of machine translation).
Grosse does not disclose wherein an automatically guided carriage of the plurality of automatically guided carriages comprises first hooking means; and the first lifting means and/or the second lifting means comprise second hooking means configured to cooperate with the first hooking means so as to perform hooking for lifting or lowering and then unhooking to release the automatically guided carriage. Grosse show the use of moveable rails onto which the vehicles can be driven and then lifted but this is different from the deployable spindle arrangement disclosed by the Applicant and required given the means plus function interpretation of the claim.
Dudde teaches a lifting arrangement including a carriage (6a) of the plurality of carriages comprises first hooking means (56/58); and the first lifting means and/or the second lifting means comprise second hooking means (60) configured to cooperate with the first hooking means so as to perform hooking for lifting or lowering and then unhooking to release the automatically guided carriage (para 0034) in order to selectively engage/disengage the carriage/car with the belt (para 0034).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of Applicants’ claim to have modified Grosse to include an automatically guided carriage of the plurality of automatically guided carriages comprises first hooking means; and the first lifting means and/or the second lifting means comprise second hooking means configured to cooperate with the first hooking means so as to perform hooking for lifting or lowering and then unhooking to release the automatically guided carriage, as taught by Dudde, in order to selectively engage/disengage the carriage/car with the belt. Furthermore, doing so merely entails substituting one known carriage engagement arrangement for another to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2 Grosse discloses wherein said first lifting means and second lifting means are arranged in the vertical movement column such that each first lifting means is adjacent to a respective second lifting means (see figure 2 and para 0056).
Regarding claim 3 Grosse discloses the first lifting means and/or the second lifting means comprise chains, cables or belts (49/54) carrying the second hooking means.
Regarding claim 4 the combination teaches the first lifting means and/or the second lifting means comprising belts (see Grosse 49/54 and/or Dudde 22/60): the first hooking means comprise spindles (Dudde 56/58 and figure 8) each being mobile between a backward position and a forward position, the second hooking means being integral with the belts or incorporated into the same, comprise housings each arranged to receive a mobile spindle when in the forward position (see Dudde figure 8).
Regarding claim 5 the combination teaches a first lifting means and/or a second lifting means comprise: an endless belt arranged between two pulleys (see e.g., Dudde at figure 8), and a plurality of second hooking means (60) integral with the belt.
Regarding claim 6 the combination teaches a first lifting means and/or a second lifting means comprises two belt portions connected by a hooking piece comprising a housing (see Dudde figure 8, portion of belt 22 below and above 60).
Regarding claim 8 the Grosse discloses the vertical movement column is arranged in a shaft connecting storage levels of the racking (see figure 2).
Regarding claim 9 the Grosse discloses the vertical movement column is arranged between two parallel portions of the racking (see figure 2).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grosse and Dudde as applied above and further in view of DE102012019356 to Beer.
Grosse and Dudde teach all the limitations of the claim except said hooking piece is arranged between two guide uprights along which it slides when raising or lowering.
Beer teaches a lifting arrangement including said hooking piece (30) is arranged between two guide uprights (29) along which it slides when raising or lowering (see figure 7) in order to guide the lifting movement and prevent tilting of the carriage/robot (see para 0057-58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of Applicants’ claim to have modified Grosse and Dudde to include said hooking piece is arranged between two guide uprights along which it slides when raising or lowering, as taught by Beer, in order to guide the lifting movement and prevent tilting of the carriage/robot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional cited references show other similar lifting arrangements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK C HAGEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5547. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:15-4:45 (PST).
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 571-272-7097. 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.
/MARK C HAGEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652