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 .
Status of Claims
This action is responsive to Applicant’s claims filed 04/29/2026.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-13, 15-30 are currently pending and have been examined here.
Claims 3, 9, and 14 have been canceled.
Claims 1-2, 10, and 26 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claims 15-23 and 28-29 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-13 and 26-27 are allowed.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Austrheim, Trond (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20220234827; hereinafter "Trond") in view of Fjeldheim et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20220281684; hereinafter "Fjeldheim").
As per claim 1, Trond teaches:
A grid framework system comprising:
Trond teaches a system and method for storing packages in a grid framework. (Trond: abstract, Figs. 1-5)
A) a substructure;
Trond teaches a substructure in the form of a concrete floor. (Trond: paragraph [0046])
B) a grid framework structure configured for supporting a load handling device operative to move one or more containers in a stack, said grid framework structure including:
Trond teaches a grid framework structure for storing items. (Trond: paragraphs [0061-68], Figs. 1-5) Trond teaches remotely operated bin handling vehicles (load handling devices) which may move bins around on the storage structure. (Trond: paragraph [0042, 61, 68], Fig. 1)
i) a plurality of upright members, the plurality of upright members being spatially arranged to form a three dimensional supporting framework structure including a plurality of vertical storage columns for storage containers to be stacked between the upright members, the supporting framework structure being mounted to the substructure;
Trond teaches upright members in the form of vertical columns which are spatially arranged to form a grid about which the bin handling vehicles may move. (Trond: paragraph [0061-68], Figs. 1-5)
ii) a grid structure lying in a horizontal plane and mounted to the supporting framework structure, said grid structure including a plurality of grid members including a first set of grid members and a second set of grid members, the first set of grid members extending in a first direction and the second set of grid members extending in a second direction, the second direction being substantially perpendicular to the first direction such that the plurality of grid members are arranged in a grid pattern including a plurality of grid cells, each of the plurality of grid cells including a grid opening
Trond teaches guiding rails along horizontal planes throughout the vertical grid made of supporting members which may be mounted to the vertical columns, wherein the horizontal members may extend in directions perpendicular to one another in order to create multiple floors within the vertical grid structure and create cells for storing bins. (Trond: paragraphs [0061-68], Figs. 1-5)
iii) a plurality of solid walled panels distributed internally within the supporting framework structure such that each of the plurality of solid walled panels lies in a respective vertical plane within the supporting framework structure having a first end anchored to the substructure and a second end secured to the grid structure to provide stability to the grid framework structure;
Trond teaches panels 6 which may rest in the vertical planes created by a vertical member and a guiding rail (in either direction), wherein the panels may be secured to the substructure via bolts 18 and secured to the vertical members themselves. (Trond: paragraphs [0067-74], Fig. 6, 10-11, 12-13)
wherein one or more of the plurality of solid walled panels are secured to a pair of the plurality of upright members such that the one or more solid walled panels extends continuously between the pair of the plurality of upright members;
Trond teaches panels 6 which may rest in the vertical planes created by a vertical member and a guiding rail (in either direction), wherein the panels may be secured to the substructure via bolts 18 and secured to the vertical members themselves. (Trond: paragraphs [0067-74], Fig. 6, 10-11, 12-13) In teaching that two panels may be attached to two upright members, Trond teaches that one or more of the panels may be attached to a pair of the plurality of upright members and extend continuously therebetween. Id.
Trond does not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein one or more of the plurality of solid walled panels are secured to a pair of the plurality of upright members such that the one or more solid walled panels extends continuously between the pair of the plurality of upright members.
Fjeldheim, however, teaches side panels 25 which may extend continuously between vertical members of a grid framework structure for stacking objects. (Fjeldheim: paragraphs [0096, 154], Fig. 11) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Trond or by Fjeldheim. Adding the side panels of Fjeldheim to the teachings of Frond does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Frond. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Fjeldheim with the teachings of Frond since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
As per claim 2, Trond in view of Fjeldheim teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the plurality of upright members are interconnected at their upper ends by the plurality of grid members;
Trond teaches that the vertical members may be interconnected at their upper ends by the horizontal members which make up the horizontal planes, wherein the vertical columns created by such are located below a grid opening. (Trond: paragraph [0071], Fig. 10)
and wherein the first and second sets of grid members intersect in the grid structure such that each of the plurality of vertical storage columns are located below a respective grid opening;
Trond teaches that the vertical members may be interconnected at their upper ends by the horizontal members which make up the horizontal planes, wherein the vertical columns created by such are located below a grid opening. (Trond: paragraph [0071], Fig. 10)
As per claim 4, Trond in view of Fjeldheim teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the plurality of solid walled panels are spatially distributed within the framework structure such that two or more of the plurality of solid walled panels are separated by one or more of the plurality of upright members.
Trond teaches that two of the panels (see the panel 6 of Fig. 12 and its counterpart on the other side of the column) may be separated by an upright member column 1. (Trond: Fig. 12)
As per claim 5, Trond in view of Fjeldheim teaches all of the limitations of claim 4, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the plurality of solid walled panels comprises a first set of solid walled panels and a second set of solid walled panels, the first set of solid walled panels extending in the first direction and the second set of solid walled panels extending in the second direction.
Trond teaches that some panels 6 may be extending in one direction, and others may extend in a direction perpendicular to that direction. (Trond: Fig. 12)
As per claim 6, Trond in view of Fjeldheim teaches all of the limitations of claim 5, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the first set of solid walled panels are spatially distributed along the first direction and the second set of solid walled panels are spatially distributed along the second direction.
Trond teaches that some panels 6 may be extending in one direction, and others may extend in a direction perpendicular to that direction, wherein each are spatially distributed. (Trond: Fig. 12)
As per claim 7, Trond in view of Fjeldheim teaches all of the limitations of claim 6, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the grid framework structure is a self-supporting rectilinear assemblage of the plurality of upright members having a first dimension extending in the first direction and a second dimension extending in the second direction, and wherein the first set of solid walled panels are spatially distributed along the first direction such that the first set of solid walled panels partially extends along the first dimension and the second set of solid walled panels are spatially distributed along the second direction such that the second set of solid walled panels partially extends along the second dimension.
Trond teaches a self-supported grid structure made of vertical columns and horizontal members creating planes at various heights along the columns. (Trond: paragraphs [0061-68], Figs. 1-5, 10) Trond teaches that some panels 6 may be extending in one direction, and others may extend in a direction perpendicular to that direction, wherein each are spatially distributed. (Trond: Fig. 12)
As per claim 8, Trond in view of Fjeldheim teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein one or more of the plurality of solid walled panels are spatially distributed within the framework structure such that adjacent solid walled panels are spaced apart by one or more grid cells.
Tron teaches that panels may be spaced such that those adjacent to each other is space apart by a grid cell. (Tron: Fig. 10 showing a panel in the upper left corner, a grid cell, and then another panel labeled 26 in the image)
As per claim 24, Trond in view of Fjeldheim teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein each of the plurality of solid walled panels is anchored to the substructure by one or more bolts.
Trond teaches that the panels may be secured to the concrete floor via one or more bolts. (Trond: paragraph [00066], Figs. 6, 9)
As per claim 25, Trond in view of Fjeldheim teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the substructure comprises concrete.
Trond teaches a substructure in the form of a concrete floor. (Trond: paragraph [0046])
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trond in view of Fjeldheim in view of Austrheim, Trond (WIPO Patent Document No. WO 2019/238694 A1; hereinafter "Austrheim").
As per claim 30, Trond in view of Fjeldheim teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
i) a grid framework system as defined in claim 1 ii) a plurality of stacks of containers arranged in storage columns located below the grid structure, wherein each storage column is located vertically below a grid cell iii) a plurality of load handling devices for lifting and moving containers stacked in the stacks, the plurality of load handling devices being configured to be remotely operated to move laterally on the grid structure above the storage columns to access the containers through the grid structure, each of said plurality of load handling devices including:
Trond teaches upright members in the form of vertical columns which are spatially arranged to form a grid about which the bin handling vehicles may move. (Trond: paragraph [0061-68], Figs. 1-5) Trond teaches guiding rails along horizontal planes throughout the vertical grid made of supporting members which may be mounted to the vertical columns, wherein the horizontal members may extend in directions perpendicular to one another in order to create multiple floors within the vertical grid structure and create cells for storing bins. (Trond: paragraphs [0061-68], Figs. 1-5) Trond teaches a grid framework structure for storing items. (Trond: paragraphs [0061-68], Figs. 1-5) Trond teaches remotely operated bin handling vehicles (load handling devices) which may move bins around on the storage structure. (Trond: paragraph [0042, 61, 68], Fig. 1)
Trond in view of Fjeldheim does not appear to explicitly teach:
a) a wheel assembly for guiding the load handling device on the grid structure b) a container-receiving space located above the grid structure when the load handling device is on the grid structure and c) a lifting device configured and arranged to lift a single container from a stack into the container-receiving space.
"Austrheim, however, teaches a wheeled vehicle used to move bins around a grid structure, wherein the wheel assembly guides the device on the structure in order to place containers in receiving spaces, and where the vehicle comprises a lifting device which may lift containers and place them into receiving spaces. (Austrheim: page 2 lines 7-26 and 27-35, page 4 lines 1-6, page 10 lines 4-12, page 17 lines 1-11) Austrheim teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Trond in view of Fjeldheim for the benefit of providing an automated storage and retrieval system, and a method for operating such a system, that solves or at least mitigates one or more of the aforementioned problems related to the use of prior art storage and retrieval systems, including the lack of flexibility, expensive implementation, inefficient use of space, and increased congestion. (Austrheim: page 6 lines 7-32) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Austrheim with the teachings of Trond in view of Fjeldheim to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
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 EMMETT K WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 6 a.m. - 4:45 p.m..
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 571-270-3445. 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.
/EMMETT K. WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights