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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters “P” has been used to designate both “a lift platform” and “a lift conveyor”, “B” has been used to designate both “a rack conveyor” and “a buffer conveyor”, “100” has been used to designate both “a rack storage system” and “storage”, “1000” has been used to designate both “a controller” and “a control”. 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 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, and 11-18 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.
Claims 1, 11, and 18 recites “the transfer is controlled by the controller to be performed as soon as the lift conveyor platform and the rack conveyor are at same height based on height positioning from the sensor and the controller controlling the lifting platform to travel vertically beyond the rack level for transition thus allowing the transfer to be initiated by the controller earlier by transferring the load from the higher lift conveyor platform to the lower rack conveyor or vice versa”. The specification of the instant application does not disclose a simultaneous transfer. Instead, it teaches a transfer that begins just before the platform is leveled with the rack.
Therefore, the term “as soon as” is unclear and indefinite about the timing of when the transfer is being performed. The examiner has read the term “as soon as” as “as around” for examination purpose.
Claim 5 recites “conveyor” in line 9 and claim 13 recites “conveyor” in line 5, it is unclear which conveyor this is. The examiner has read the team “conveyor” as “the rack conveyor” for examination purpose.
Since claims 2-4, 6-9,18 and 12, 14-17 are being dependent of claims 1, 5, 11 and 13 that is why these claims are rejected as well.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-8, 11-13, 15-16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Salichs et al. (US9334114B2) in view of Morikawa (US20160289002A1).
Claim 10 is cancelled.
Regarding claim 1, Salichs et al. discloses a storage system (Fig. 1 and Fig. 18) comprising:
a multi-level storage rack (abstract, line 1);
a vertical lift (302) connecting (Fig. 1) the levels of the multi-level storage rack (314), the vertical lift (302) having a conveyor (328) platform (304), with at least one rack level (5A-5K) having a driven rack conveyor (330, 331) adjacent to the vertical lift (it can be seen in Fig. 20); and
a controller configured for controlling the lift (Column 7, line 65 - column 8 line 2); wherein the conveyor platform (304) has a driven conveyor (328) controlled by the controller (It is mentioned in column 7, that it is controlled by controller) to transfer loads to and from the conveyor platform (column 8, lines 6-10) and the rack conveyor such that the lift conveyor platform and rack conveyor are controlled to transfer a load between the lift conveyor platform and the rack conveyor or vice versa, and (It can be seen in Fig. 18-21) wherein
the transfer is controlled by the controller (Column 8, lines 2-3) to be performed as soon as the lift conveyor platform and the rack conveyor are at same height based on height positioning from the sensor and the controller controlling the lifting platform to travel vertically beyond the rack level for transition thus allowing the transfer to be initiated by the controller earlier by transferring the load from the higher lift conveyor platform to the lower rack conveyor or vice versa by the controller controlling the driven conveyor of the conveyor platform and the conveyor adjacent to the vertical lift. (See column 8, lines 38-47, it is disclosing the concept of before the lift aligns to aisle rack, raw car starts moving the load by conveyer 112 to reduce the loading or unloading time).
It fails to disclose the lift has a sensor arranged to determine a height positioning of the lift platform verses the rack level and coupled with the controller.
Morikawa teaches that the lift (20) has a sensor arranged (25 has a sensor k) to determine a height (K) positioning of the lift platform (25) verses the rack level (12) and coupled with the controller (Fig. 8, ¶0058, lines 32-37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified Salichs et al. by incorporating the lift has a sensor arranged to determine a height positioning of the lift platform verses the rack level and coupled with the controller in view of Morikawa in order to provide a multi-level storage facility which can calculate the position off set amount of the lift conveyor platform relative to rack level and correct the target stop position by determining the accurate position of the loading or unloading of the load unit base on the position of the rack level.
Regarding claim 2, Salichs et al. in view of Morikawa discloses all the limitation of the claim 1.
Salichs et al. also discloses each storage level has a rack conveyor adjacent to the vertical lift (It can be seen in Fig. 20, rack conveyor 330, 331 are adjacent to the vertical lift 302) controlled by the controller to function as a buffer decoupling the lift or to function as a supply and discharge conveyor for the storage rack (It can be seen it is doing loading or unloading function as a buffer decoupling or as a supply and discharge 330, 331 in Fig. 18 and 20).
Regarding claim 3, Salichs et al. in view of Morikawa discloses all the limitation of the claim 2.
Salichs et al. also discloses the at least one rack level storage has a rack conveyor (330, 331) adjacent the vertical lift (302) on each side functioning as a buffer (It can be seen in Fig. 18 and 20, there are two lifts on each side has a buffer conveyor 330 on each rack level).
Regarding claim 4 and 12, Salichs et al. in view of Morikawa discloses all the limitation of the claim 3 and 11.
Salichs et al. also discloses each storage level has a rack conveyor adjacent to the vertical lift on each side (It can be seen in Fig. 18 and 20).
Regarding claim 5 and 13, Salichs et al. in view of Morikawa discloses all the limitation of the claim 4 and 11.
Salichs et al. also discloses the controller is configured for controlling the lift (Column 7, line 65 - column 8 line 2), the driven conveyor (328) of the conveyor platform (304) and a drive of the driven rack conveyor such that the lift conveyor platform and conveyor are controlled to transfer a load between the lift conveyor platform and the rack conveyor or vice versa simultaneously (Salichs et al. disclosing that the warehouse is automated controlled by programable logic controller, which is able to perform the load and unload function from life conveyor to buffer or rack conveyor or vice versa simultaneously there are two lifts and both lift can load and unload simultaneously, see Fig. 18).
Regarding claim 7 and 15, Salichs et al. in view of Morikawa discloses all the limitation of the claim 1 and 11.
Salichs et al. also discloses the vertical lift conveyor platform (304) is horizontally oriented and the opposing rack conveyors are on different heights (It can be seen in Fig. 20, that the vertical lift conveyor platform is horizontally oriented and the opposing rack conveyors are on different heights).
Regarding claim 8 and 16, Salichs et al. in view of Morikawa discloses all the limitation of the claim 1 and 11.
Salichs et al. also discloses the system comprises at least two parallel racks (Fig. 20) with an aisle (303) in between and a single level rack servicing vehicle (100) running the length of the aisle between storage positions and the conveyor adjacent to the vertical lift (It can be seen in Fig. 20).
Regarding claim 11, Salichs et al. discloses a storage system (Fig. 1 and Fig. 18) comprising:
a multi-level storage rack (abstract, line 1);
a vertical lift (302) connecting (Fig. 1) the levels of the multi-level storage rack (314), the vertical lift (302) having a conveyor (328) platform (304), with at least one rack level (5A-5K) having a driven rack conveyor (330, 331) adjacent to the vertical lift (it can be seen in Fig. 20); and
a controller configured for controlling the lift (Column 7, line 65 - column 8 line 2); wherein the conveyor platform (304) has a driven conveyor (328) controlled by the controller (It is mentioned in column 7, that it is controlled by controller) to transfer loads to and from the conveyor platform (column 8, lines 6-10) and the rack conveyor such that the lift conveyor platform and rack conveyor are controlled to transfer a load between the lift conveyor platform and the rack conveyor or vice versa, and (It can be seen in Fig. 18-21) wherein
the transfer is controlled by the controller (Column 8, lines 2-3) to be performed as soon as the lift conveyor platform and the rack conveyor are at same height based on height positioning from the sensor and the controller controlling the lifting platform to travel vertically beyond the rack level for transition thus allowing the transfer to be initiated by the controller earlier by transferring the load from the higher lift conveyor platform to the lower rack conveyor or vice versa by the controller controlling the driven conveyor of the conveyor platform and the conveyor adjacent to the vertical lift (See column 8, lines 38-47, it is disclosing the concept of before the lift aligns to aisle rack, raw car starts moving the load by conveyer 112 to reduce the loading or unloading time) and ;
wherein the at least one rack level storage has a rack conveyor (330, 331) adjacent the vertical lift (302) on each side functioning as a buffer (It can be seen in Fig. 18 and 20, there are two lifts on each side has a buffer conveyor 330 on each rack level).
It fails to disclose the lift has a sensor arranged to determine a height positioning of the lift platform verses the rack level and coupled with the controller.
Morikawa teaches that the lift (20) has a sensor arranged (25 has a sensor k) to determine a height (K) positioning of the lift platform (25) verses the rack level (12) and coupled with the controller (Fig. 8, ¶0058, lines 32-37, For motivation statement purpose see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 18, Salichs et al. in view of Morikawa discloses storage system which performs method for operation of a storage system according to claim 1.
Salichs et al. also discloses said method comprising: controlling the lift conveyor platform (304) and the rack conveyor (330, 331) to transfer a load between the lift conveyor platform and the rack conveyor or vice versa (It can be seen in Fig. 18 and 20);
wherein the transfer is controlled (Column 8, lines 2-3) to be performed as soon as the lift conveyor platform and the rack conveyor are at same height and lifting platform over travels beyond transition level allowing the transfer to be initiated earlier by transferring the load from the higher lift conveyor platform to the lower rack conveyor or vice versa (See column 8, lines 38-47, it is disclosing the concept of before the lift aligns to aisle rack, raw car starts moving the load by conveyer 112 to reduce the loading or unloading time).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 9, 14 and 17 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. Additional cited references show other storage system and article transport facilities which utilizes similar arrangements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAIMIN G PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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 517-272-7097. 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.
/SAUL RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3652
/JAIMIN G PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3652