DETAILED ACTION
This application includes independent claims 1 and 10; and dependent claims 2-9 and 11-16.
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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “tilt drawer has a horizontal axis of rotation arranged in a horizontal central part of the tilt drawer” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claim 3 and 13-14 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 “central” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “central” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claims 13 and 14 are method claims which depend from an apparatus claim. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite (see MPEP 2173.05(p)). Additionally, recitations in method claims are construed differently than the identical recitation in an apparatus claim. Therefore, the claims are indefinite because they are subject to a plurality of plausible claim constructions. Additionally, claims 13 and 14 include numerous double inclusions of limitations recited in claim 10. Claims 13 and 14 should be substantially redrafted in accordance with USPTO practice.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kania (US 10,814,355).
Regarding independent claim 1, Kania discloses an access station for an automated storage and retrieval system, wherein the access station comprises: a frame structure (3); and a drawer (16) arranged in the frame structure, wherein the drawer is a tilt drawer (see Fig. 2) comprising a compartment (16) for accommodating a goods holder (8), wherein the tilt drawer is pivotable between a receiving position for receiving a goods holder from above, and a tilted picking position for presenting a goods holder to a user (see at least abstract).
Regarding dependent claims 2-4 and 6-9, Kania discloses that the tilt drawer has a horizontal axis of rotation (20) arranged under a middle of the tilt drawer (see Fig. 2). The tilt drawer has a horizontal axis of rotation (20) arranged in a horizontal central part of the frame structure (3). The access station is configured for vertical alignment of the receiving position with a port column (11) of the automated storage and retrieval system for receiving goods holder therefrom. The access station comprises a tilt limiter (see at least col. 3, lines 44-47) configured to limit pivotal movement of the tilt drawer beyond the picking position. The tilt limiter is arranged on the tilt drawer (see at least col. 3, lines 44-47). The frame structure and/or the tilt drawer are configured to prevent retrieval of a goods holder from the compartment when the tilt drawer is in the picking position (see at least item 18). The tilt drawer is automated (see at least col. 4, lines 15-40).
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) 10-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hognaland et al. (WO 2017/211596) in view of Kania (US 10,814,355).
Regarding independent claim 10, Hognaland discloses an automated storage and retrieval system comprising an access station (60) for an automated storage and retrieval system, wherein the access station comprises: a frame structure (25); and a drawer (70) arranged in the frame structure, wherein the drawer comprises a compartment for accommodating a goods holder, wherein the drawer is slidable between a receiving position for receiving a goods holder from above, and picking position for presenting a goods holder to a user; a rail system (see at least Fig. 1) comprising a first set of parallel rails (see at least Fig. 1) arranged in a horizontal plane and extending in a first direction and a second set of parallel rails (see at least Fig. 1) arranged in the horizontal plane and extending in a second direction which is orthogonal to the first direction, which first and second sets of rails form a grid (20) in the horizontal plane comprising a plurality of adjacent access openings (see at least Fig. 1); a storage section (see at least Fig. 1) comprising a plurality of goods holder arranged in storage columns located beneath the rail system, wherein each storage column is located vertically below one of the plurality of access openings (see at least Fig. 1); at least one port column located beneath the rail system and vertically aligned with a receiving position (see at least Fig. 2) of the access station (60), the at least one port column being void of goods holder (see at least Fig. 6); and a container handling vehicle (40) comprising a gripping device (50) for lifting goods holder stored in the columns above the storage section and drive means (see at least p. 1, lines 1-15) configured to drive the vehicle along the rail system in at least one of the first direction and the second direction. Hognaland discloses all the limitations of the claim, but it does not disclose that the drawer is a tilt drawer, wherein the tilt drawer is pivotable between a receiving position for receiving a goods, and a tilted picking position. While Hognaland does disclose “the drawer may be of a hinged-type of drawer”, it doesn’t explicitly disclose a tilt drawer. However, Kania discloses a similar device including a drawer which is a tilt drawer (16), wherein the tilt drawer is pivotable between a receiving position for receiving a goods, and a tilted picking position for the purpose of presenting a goods holder to a user and implementing a “hinged-type of drawer”. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the applicant’s invention, to utilize a tilt drawer, wherein the tilt drawer is pivotable between a receiving position for receiving a goods (see abstract), and a tilted picking position (see abstract), as disclosed by Kania, for the purpose of presenting a goods holder to a user and implementing a “hinged-type of drawer”.
Regarding dependent claims 11, 12, Hognaland discloses that the access station is configured to provide a lower section of the port column (see at least Fig. 2). The automated storage and retrieval system comprises at least two access stations (see at least Fig. 2)
Regarding claims 13 and 14, the combination of Hognaland and Kania discloses the method of retrieving a goods holder stored in the storage section of the storage and retrieval system by means of a container handling vehicle comprising a gripping device; moving a tilt drawer of the access station to a receiving position; placing the goods holder in a compartment of the tilt drawer; tilting the tilt drawer into a picking position to present the goods holder to the user; after presenting the goods holder to the user, returning the tilt drawer to the receiving position; and retrieving the goods holder from the compartment (see citations to Hognaland and Kania above).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, the combination of Hognaland and Kania discloses all the limitations of the claims, but it does not disclose that the automated storage and retrieval system comprises at least four stations. Rather, the combination discloses two stations. However, having at least four stations merely requires the duplication of parts already present in the combination and would result in more stations. 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 have at least four stations for the purpose of proving more stations.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kania (US 10,814,355) in view of Rapier (US 7,635,171). Kania discloses an access station for an automated storage and retrieval system, wherein the access station comprises: a frame structure (3); and a drawer (16) arranged in the frame structure, wherein the drawer is a tilt drawer (see Fig. 2) comprising a compartment (16) for accommodating a goods holder (8), wherein the tilt drawer is pivotable between a receiving position for receiving a goods holder from above, and a tilted picking position for presenting a goods holder to a user (see at least abstract). Kania discloses all the limitations of the claims, but it does not disclose that the tilt drawer is biased towards the receiving position. However, Rapier discloses a similar device which includes a tilt drawer biased towards a receiving position (see col. 3, lines 20-30; “closed position”) for the purpose of automatically returning the drawer to the receiving position after removal of a container. 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 Kania by having the tilt drawer biased towards the receiving position, as disclosed by Rapier, for the purpose of automatically returning the drawer to the receiving position after removal of a container.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Schwanitz (US 9,617,063) and Phillips et al. (US 6,202,922) disclose tilt drawers for item collection systems.
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