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 .
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are currently being examined. By Applicant’s amendment of January 5, 2024, claims 1-20 are pending following:
Claims 1-9 have been amended
New claims 10-20 have been added
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9-11, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lord (US Patent 4,299,496).
Regarding independent claim 1, Lord discloses:
An automated storage system comprising at least one rack with several rack supports placed on a ground, several storage levels arranged vertically one above the other, each storage level comprising at least one storage space, and several storage aids that can be stored in the storage spaces, [See at least Fig. 1, Ref. Numerals 10 (rack structure) placed on ground with vertical supports and multiple vertical storage levels with storage spaces, 12-15 (storage bins, storage aids); Col. 2, Lines 53-66]
the storage system further comprising at least one shuttle comprising a drive unit, the shuttle being movable on the ground by means of the drive unit, and designed for accommodating a storage aid and for supplying it to one of the storage spaces and removing it therefrom, [See at least Fig. 1, Ref. Numerals 20 (transfer vehicle, shuttle) with drive unit moving on the ground 22, 26 (platform) for carrying and alignment with bins; Col. 3, Lines 1-12] and
the storage system further comprising at least one load handling device which is designed for storing the storage aid from the shuttle into the storage space and for retrieving it from the storage space onto the shuttle, [See at least Fig. 1, Ref. Numeral 28 (rack entry vehicle); Col. 3, Lines 13-15]
characterized in that the shuttle is displaceable independently along at least one of the rack supports by means of the drive unit, the storage spaces and the shuttle each having a guide for guiding the load handling device, and the load handling device being designed for being transferred between the guide of the respective storage space and the shuttle and from the shuttle between the storage levels. [See at least Fig. 1, Ref. Numerals 28 (rack entry vehicle) movable into and out of the rack structure 10 and its bins 12-15 and onto and off the platform 26 of transfer vehicle 20, 30 & 36 (guides, rails) on which transfer vehicle travels; Col. 3, Lines 13-31, Col. 4, Lines 6-9]
Regarding claim 2, Lord discloses:
The automated storage system according to claim 1, characterized in that the guides are designed as rails. [See at least Fig. 1, Ref. Numerals 30 & 36 (guides, rails) 30 & 36 (guides, rails) on which transfer vehicle travels; Col. 3, Lines 13-31, Col. 4, Lines 6-9]
Regarding claim 3, Lord discloses:
The automated storage system according to claim 1, characterized in that the load handling device comprises a control unit which is designed for controlling the load handling device depending on a position of the shuttle in the storage system. [See at least Fig. 2, Ref. Numerals 94 (S&R controls), 95 (motor contactor controls), 96 (travel limit switches), 99 (signal receiving and processing components) Col. 3, Lines 13-31, Col. 5, Lines 5-12 and Lines 21-26]
Regarding claim 4, Lord discloses:
The automated storage system according to claim 1, characterized in that the load handling device comprises a lifting mechanism or lifting pneumatics for lifting the storage aid. [See at least Fig. 2, Ref. Numerals 76 (lift motor) for 80 (load carrying platform); Col. 4, Lines 37-40 and 65-68, Col. 7, Lines 22-42]
Regarding claim 7, Lord discloses:
The automated storage system according to claim 1, characterized in that the drive unit of the shuttle has at least two drive wheels for moving the shuttle along on the ground. [See at least Fig. 1, wheels of transfer vehicle 20 for moving along the ground]
Regarding claim 9, Lord discloses:
The automated storage system according to claim 1, characterized in that the load handling device is designed so as to be independent of the shuttle. [See at least Fig. 1, Ref. Numerals 20 (transfer vehicle) and 28 (rack entry vehicle) each with their own drive sources and moving independently of one another; Col. 5, Lines 21-26]
Regarding claim 10, Lord discloses:
The automated storage system according to claim 2, characterized in that the load handling device comprises a control unit which is designed for controlling the load handling device depending on a position of the shuttle in the storage system. [See at least Fig. 2, Ref. Numerals 94 (S&R controls), 95 (motor contactor controls), 96 (travel limit switches), 99 (signal receiving and processing components) Col. 3, Lines 13-31, Col. 5, Lines 5-12 and Lines 21-26]
Regarding claim 11, Lord discloses:
The automated storage system according to claim 3, characterized in that the load handling device comprises a lifting mechanism or lifting pneumatics for lifting the storage aid. [See at least Fig. 2, Ref. Numerals 76 (lift motor) for 80 (load carrying platform); Col. 4, Lines 37-40 and 65-68, Col. 7, Lines 22-42]
Regarding claim 16, Lord discloses:
The automated storage system according to claim 2, characterized in that the load handling device comprises a lifting mechanism or lifting pneumatics for lifting the storage aid. [See at least Fig. 2, Ref. Numerals 76 (lift motor) for 80 (load carrying platform); Col. 4, Lines 37-40 and 65-68, Col. 7, Lines 22-42]
Regarding claim 19, Lord discloses:
The automated storage system according to claim 2, characterized in that the drive unit of the shuttle has at least two drive wheels for moving the shuttle along on the ground. . [See at least Fig. 1, wheels of transfer vehicle 20 for moving along the ground]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 5, 6, 8, 12-15, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lord (US Patent 4,299,496) in view of Schroer (US 2017/0101263).
Regarding claim 5, while Lord discloses the automated storage system of claims 1, 2, and 4 on which claims 5, 12, and 17 depend; Lord does not disclose a chain drive or a belt drive for displacing the storage aid, with the chain drive or the belt drive forming a bearing area for the storage aid. With respect to these limitations, Schroer, directed to the same technology — automated storage systems — teaches:
The automated storage system according to claim 1, characterized in that the load handling device comprises a chain drive or a belt drive for displacing the storage aid, with the chain drive or the belt drive forming a bearing area for the storage aid. [See at least Figs. 14, 24 and 25, Ref. Numerals 10 (storage container), 120 (receiving space), 311 and 312 (conveyor belts); Par. 0124, 0207, 0208]
For examination purposes, the term “bearing area” has been construed as the area of contact between two surfaces, in this case the area of contact between the chain/belt drive and the storage aid. The configuration of Schroer fulfills this limitation.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lord to incorporate the teachings of Schroer and combine the chain/belt drive forming a bearing area for the storage aid and functioning to displace the storage aid with the automated storage system of Lord. The chain/belt drive forming a bearing area for the storage aid and functioning to displace the storage aid of Schroer allows independent retrieval and placement of containers (storage aids) into and out of storage spaces and vehicles, enabling increased speed and efficiency.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine the chain/belt drive forming a bearing area for the storage aid and functioning to displace the storage aid of Schroer with the automated storage system of Lord and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Even in the combined context, the features of the automated storage system of Lord and the features of the chain/belt drive forming a bearing area for the storage aid and functioning to displace the storage aid of Schroer would be expected to function as intended, with each element in the combined context performing the same function as it did separately.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Schroer because they are a known work in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (automated storage systems), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 6, while Lord discloses the automated storage system of claims 1, 2, and 7 on which claims 8, 15, and 20 depend; Lord does not disclose a transfer area with coupling-in area. With respect to these limitations, Schroer, directed to the same technology — automated storage systems — teaches:
The automated storage system according to claim 1, characterized in that a transfer area is provided between the ground and a lowest storage level of the rack, the transfer area having a height which corresponds at least to a height of the shuttle with a storage aid picked up by the shuttle, and, in a region of the transfer area, the rack supports have a coupling-in area for coupling the shuttle into or onto the rack supports. [See at least Figs. 39-41; Par. 0012, 0020-0028, 0085]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lord to incorporate the teachings of Schroer and combine the transfer area with coupling-in area with the automated storage system of Lord. The transfer area with coupling-in area of Schroer allows vehicles to transition from ground operations to rack operations and vice-versa, enabling increased speed and effectiveness.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine the transfer area with coupling-in area of Schroer with the automated storage system of Lord and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Even in the combined context, the features of the automated storage system of Lord and the features of the transfer area with coupling-in area of Schroer would be expected to function as intended, with each element in the combined context performing the same function as it did separately.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Schroer because they are a known work in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (automated storage systems), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 8, while Lord discloses the automated storage system of claims 1, 2, and 7 on which claims 8, 15, and 20 depend; Lord does not disclose a rack support coupling unit. With respect to these limitations, Schroer, directed to the same technology — automated storage systems — teaches:
The automated storage system according to claim 1, characterized in that the drive unit of the shuttle has a rack support coupling unit, the rack support coupling unit being designed for coupling the shuttle with the rack support. [See at least Figs. 4 and 5, Ref. Numerals 131, 132, 141, 142 (crawlers) which couple the storage vehicle with the rack supports; Par. 0020, 0036, 0125, 0127]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lord to incorporate the teachings of Schroer and combine the rack support coupling unit with the automated storage system of Lord. The rack support coupling unit of Schroer allows the vehicles to move along the storage racks in multiple directions, enabling increased speed and efficiency.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine the rack support coupling unit of Schroer with the automated storage system of Lord and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Even in the combined context, the features of the automated storage system of Lord and the features of the rack support coupling unit of Schroer would be expected to function as intended, with each element in the combined context performing the same function as it did separately.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Schroer because they are a known work in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (automated storage systems), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 12, Schroer teaches what Lord lacks:
The automated storage system according to claim 4, characterized in that the load handling device comprises a chain drive or a belt drive for displacing the storage aid, with the chain drive or the belt drive forming a bearing area for the storage aid. [See at least Figs. 14, 24 and 25, Ref. Numerals 10 (storage container), 120 (receiving space), 311 and 312 (conveyor belts); Par. 0124, 0207, 0208]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lord to incorporate the teachings of Schroer as discussed above, see claim 5.
Regarding claim 13, Schroer teaches what Lord lacks:
The automated storage system according to claim 5, characterized in that a transfer area is provided between the ground and a lowest storage level of the rack, the transfer area having a height which corresponds at least to a height of the shuttle with a storage aid picked up by the shuttle, and, in a region of the transfer area, the rack supports have a coupling-in area for coupling the shuttle into or onto the rack supports. [See at least Figs. 39-41; Par. 0012, 0020-0028, 0085]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lord to incorporate the teachings of Schroer as discussed above, see claim 6.
Regarding claim 14, Lord discloses:
The automated storage system according to claim 6, characterized in that the drive unit of the shuttle has at least two drive wheels for moving the shuttle along on the ground. [See at least Fig. 1, wheels of transfer vehicle 20 for moving along the ground]
Regarding claim 15, Schroer teaches what Lord lacks:
The automated storage system according to claim 7, characterized in that the drive unit of the shuttle has a rack support coupling unit, the rack support coupling unit being designed for coupling the shuttle with the rack support. [See at least Figs. 4 and 5, Ref. Numerals 131, 132, 141, 142 (crawlers) which couple the storage vehicle with the rack supports; Par. 0020, 0036, 0125, 0127]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lord to incorporate the teachings of Schroer as discussed above, see claim 8.
Regarding claim 17, Schroer teaches what Lord lacks:
The automated storage system according to claim 2, characterized in that the load handling device comprises a chain drive or a belt drive for displacing the storage aid, with the chain drive or the belt drive forming a bearing area for the storage aid. [See at least Figs. 14, 24 and 25, Ref. Numerals 10 (storage container), 120 (receiving space), 311 and 312 (conveyor belts); Par. 0124, 0207, 0208]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lord to incorporate the teachings of Schroer as discussed above, see claim 5.
Regarding claim 18, Schroer teaches what Lord lacks:
The automated storage system according to claim 2, characterized in that a transfer area is provided between the ground and a lowest storage level of the rack, the transfer area having a height which corresponds at least to a height of the shuttle with a storage aid picked up by the shuttle, and, in a region of the transfer area, the rack supports have a coupling-in area for coupling the shuttle into or onto the rack supports. [See at least Figs. 39-41; Par. 0012, 0020-0028, 0085]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lord to incorporate the teachings of Schroer as discussed above, see claim 6.
Regarding claim 20, Schroer teaches what Lord lacks:
The automated storage system according to claim 2, characterized in that the drive unit of the shuttle has a rack support coupling unit, the rack support coupling unit being designed for coupling the shuttle with the rack support. [See at least Figs. 4 and 5, Ref. Numerals 131, 132, 141, 142 (crawlers) which couple the storage vehicle with the rack supports; Par. 0020, 0036, 0125, 0127]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lord to incorporate the teachings of Schroer as discussed above, see claim 8.
Examiner's Note
Prior Art: Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and figures in the references as applied to the claims set forth hereinabove for the convenience of the Applicant. While the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claims, other passages and figures in the cited references may be applicable, as well. It is respectfully requested that the Applicant, in preparing any response to the Office Action, fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, in addition to the context of the passage(s) as taught by the prior art or as disclosed by the Examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is required to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definitions that are not specifically set forth in the claims.
English Translations: If a prior art reference has been relied upon to map the claim limitations that is in a language other than English, Examiner has provided both the original reference and an English translation of the reference as attachments to the Office Action. Applicant is encouraged to refer to the provided English translation for cited pages and/or paragraphs in the mapping of prior art to claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure [See PTO-892 Notice of References Cited] because the prior art references contain subject matter that relates to one or more of Applicant’s claim limitations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erin Morris whose telephone number is (703)756-1112. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 1000-2000 EST.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached at (571) 270-3415. 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.
/EM/Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/JACOB S. SCOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights