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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Remarks of September 29, 2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the reasons below. The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Stordal in view of Hulsmann is maintained.
On page 5 of the remarks, applicant argues that the examiner has not established the obviousness of claim 1. The requirements for a proper response to a rejection may be found in 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07. The remarks do not provide any specific reasons as to why either the findings of fact or the legal conclusion of obviousness is allegedly in error. The legal decisions cited discuss various aspects of an obviousness analysis, but Applicant’s remarks are only generalizations not tied to the facts of the cases. Thus, the remarks in response to the obviousness rejection do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07. However, Applicant’s reply is considered to be a bona fide attempt at a response and is being accepted as a complete response.
Applicant argues that Stordal does not teach “load lifting system suitable for an automated article storage system, the load lifting system comprising a pull assembly”. Stordal teaches load lifting system 100 suitable for an automated article storage system Abstract, the load lifting system 100 comprising a pull assembly 120 comprising: a belt 130 having a flexible body P0103, and at least one pull cleat 400 configured to carry a hooking device 110 intended to be attached to said at least one pull cleat 400 Fig. 66” and further details “In some embodiments, system 100 may include one or more slider guides 120. In some embodiments, slider guide 120 may be tubular. In some embodiments, slider guide 120 may be tubular having two or more channels. In some embodiments, slider guide 120 may be tubular having a toothed track operably coupled to the interior of the tubular slider guide 120. In some embodiments, slider guide 120 may be solid stock. In some embodiments, slider 110 may be operably coupled to slider support 130. In some embodiments, slider support 130 may be moveably coupled to one or more rotatable members 140. In some embodiments, slider support 130 may be operably coupled to weight 190. In some embodiments, slider support 130 may be operably coupled to spring 240. In some embodiments, slider support 130 may be operably coupled to winch 250. In some embodiments, slider support 130 may be positioned on the exterior of slider guide 120. In some embodiments, slider support 130 may be positioned on the interior of slider guide 120. In some embodiments, slider support 130 may be operably coupled to weight 190. In some embodiments, slider support 130 may be operably coupled to spring 240. In some embodiments, spring 240 may be positioned within the interior of slider guide 120. In some embodiments, spring 240 may be positioned on the exterior of slider guide 120” P0081-0082. The claims language does not provide distinct structural language to differentiate from the cited prior art instead using generic placeholders with broad language as suitable, carry and so on.
Regarding the substance of the examiner’s obviousness rejection as argued on page 2 of the remarks, the requirements for obviousness are discussed in MPEP § 2142. As explained in the previous Office action, the only difference between claim 1 and the teachings of Stordal is the methods, systems, and devices for storage are disclosed herein. More specifically, methods, systems, and devices that may be used to store numerous articles in a vertical space Abstract. Hulsmann teaches a conveyor belt has one or more conveyor belt segments made of an elastomeric material layer and a reinforcement layer of steel ropes disposed in the elastomeric material layer and oriented in a longitudinal direction of the conveyor belt segment. Like the claimed invention, both Stordal and Hulsmann are directed to transport systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that substituting the belt structure as taught by Hulsmann for the belt of Stordal would have been within the skill of the art and yielded the predictable result of maintaining the support and stability of the belt in the transport system. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B) and § 2143.02. The rejection of claim 1 as obvious over Stordal in view of Hulsmann is, therefore, maintained.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. Nor do the arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out how using a flexible belt with pull cables embedded as taught by Hulsmann into the invention of Stordal since it will provide additional support and stability to the transport system. Hulsmann teaches “a conveyor belt segment 2 according to the invention can be taken from FIG. 2. Based on a reinforcement layer 8 of steel ropes 9 located in the interior of the flexible belt element 6, the flexible belt element 6 comprises upper and lower cover layers that can be provided with different profilings but also without profiling. On each conveyor belt segment end 3 of a conveyor belt segment 2 the latter is provided with a transverse lock bar 10 that, with respect to its length extension, is oriented transverse to the running direction of the conveyor belt segment 2 and serves for coupling two conveyor belt segments 2 or for closing a conveyor belt segment 2 to a conveyor belt 1. The transverse lock bar 10 comprises in the running direction of the conveyor belt segment 2 a plurality of bores 11 in which the ends of steel ropes 9 are connected in a pull-resistant way to the transverse lock bar 10 by joining methods such as soldering, gluing, welding, pressing, or clamping. Moreover, the illustration of FIG. 2 shows that the transverse lock bar has a preferably square cross section whose edge lengths can be in a range of 10 to 15 mm. Thus, the transverse lock bar 10 that, for coupling, is to be connected with a further lock bar 10 of a further conveyor belt segment 2 in a rigid correlation relative to each other has an extremely compact size which reliably prevents limitations of the flexibility for deflections at guide and idler pulleys” C4 L15-40.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the transport disclosed in Stordal with the belt taught in Hulsmann with a reasonable expectation of success because
For the foregoing reasons, the claims stand rejected.
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) 1-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stordal U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0105360 in view of Hulsmann U.S. Patent No. 10,244,682.
Claim 1, Stordal teaches load lifting system 100 suitable for an automated article storage system Abstract, the load lifting system 100 comprising a pull assembly 120 comprising: a belt 130 having a flexible body P0103, and at least one pull cleat 400 configured to carry a hooking device 110 intended to be attached to said at least one pull cleat 400 Fig. 66, wherein the at least one pull cleat 400 has a direct mechanical connection with all or part of the plurality of pull cables of 130, but does not teach as Hulsmann teaches a belt 1 having a flexible body Fig. 5 and a plurality of pull cables 9 embedded in the flexible body Fig. 2. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the transport disclosed in Stordal with the belt taught in Hulsmann with a reasonable expectation of success because
Claim 2, Stordal does not teach as Hulsmann teaches pull cables 9 pass through the at least one pull cleat 5 Fig. 2. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the transport disclosed in Stordal with the belt taught in Hulsmann with a reasonable expectation of success because
Claim 3, Stordal does not teach as Hulsmann teaches the at least one pull cleat 5 is surrounded by pull cables 9 Fig. 2. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the transport disclosed in Stordal with the belt taught in Hulsmann with a reasonable expectation of success because
Claim 4, Stordal teaches the hooking device of 400 is a latch Fig. 66.
Claim 5, Stordal does not teach as Hulsmann teaches the flexible body of 1 comprises two portions 7, a first portion 7 of the two portions 7 comprising pull cables 9 having first connection rings 16, a second portion 7 of the two portions 7 comprising pull cables 9 having second connection rings 16, configured to fit to said first connection rings 16, the at least one pull cleat 5 forming a connection axis between the two portions 7 passing through the first and second rings 16 Fig. 7. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the transport disclosed in Stordal with the belt taught in Hulsmann with a reasonable expectation of success because
Claim 6, Stordal teaches the at least one pull cleat 400 comprises a first end and a second end, each projecting from an opposite side of the flexible body of the belt 130 Fig. 66, the hooking device 110 is in the form of a clip 160 configured to be attached to said two ends of the at least one pull cleat 400 Fig. 40,66 P0079.
Claim 7, Stordal does not teach as Hulsmann teaches the flexible body of the belt 1 comprises a plurality of portions 7 configured to be attached together to form the belt 1, at least one portion comprises a cleat 5 Fig. 7. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the transport disclosed in Stordal with the belt taught in Hulsmann with a reasonable expectation of success because
Claim 9, Stordal teaches an automated article storage system 100 comprising a lifting system 120 according to claim 1 and an automatically guided carriage 310 comprising hooking means 150 configured to cooperate with a hooking device 110 attached to a cleat 400 of a pulling assembly 100 P0111.
Claim 10, Stordal teaches a rack 230 having a plurality of levels for storing articles 290, wherein said lifting system 120 connects said storage levels and is able to allow passage of an automatically guided carriage 310 from one storage level to the other P0089 Fig. 40.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAVEL SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-2362. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8am-6pm.
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, Gene Crawford can be reached at (571) 272-6911. 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.
/KAVEL SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3651
KS