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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-38 are pending in this application.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 2-21 and 31-38 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 7, 2026.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the “conveyor robot” of claim 29 does not appear in the DETAILED DESCRIPTION section of the instant specification, but only in the SUMMARY. Per the corresponding objection to the drawings and the rejection of claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) it is unclear if the claimed conveyor robot appears in either the DETAILED DESCRIPTION or the drawings under another name. Applicant’s method of addressing this issue may result in any or all of amendments to drawings, specification, or claim 29.
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 “conveyor robot” of claim 29 must be shown or the features canceled from the claim. No new matter should be entered.
Per the objection to the specification above and the rejection of claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) below, it is unclear whether applicant’s “conveyor robot” is or may be the same as applicant’s “tray conveyor shuttle” or other disclosed structures. If they are the same then no drawing change need be made; rather the problem may be addressed via an amendment to either the claims or the specification or both. If, however, they are different structures, then the conveyor robot must be clearly depicted in the drawings with a suitable reference character cited in the text of the DETAILED DESCRIPTION section of the specification. This section of the instant specification refers to a “conveyor assembly”, a “tray conveyor” and a “tray conveyor assembly”, but not to the claimed “conveyor robot”.
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.
Examiner’s Note
The examiner would welcome an interview to clarify any of the various rejections seen below in order to expedite prosecution of the instant application.
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 29 is 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.
Claim 29 discloses a “conveyor robot” which, while supported by the instant specification in [0017]-[0019], is not depicted by that name in any figure. Moreover, it is unclear whether applicant’s “tray conveyor shuttle” (a robotic device) is identical with applicant’s conveyor robot, or whether a conveyor robot is definitely intended as a separate device. This question raises a point of indefiniteness. For purposes of examination on the merits in this office action, we consider that a tray conveyor shuttle may be a tray conveyor robot.
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.
Claims 22 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Neeper, et al., US 2007/0172396 (hereinafter Neeper).
Regarding claim 22,
Neeper discloses:
A storage system (storage system 100: fig. 1) comprising: a storage chamber (storage compartment 410: fig. 5b, [0069]; also see claim 16);
a column of tiles integral to a wall of the storage chamber; (columns of insulated blocks, [0069])
a vertical track (540: fig. 5a, [0069]) adapted to enable the column of tiles to slide vertically along the wall of the storage chamber;
a first robotic arm (combination of pin drive mechanism 512 and pin 506: fig. 5a, [0069]), wherein, during an opening operation, the first robotic arm is configured to lift a subset of the column of tiles upwards along the vertical track to create an aperture in the wall in place of a selected tile, the subset including the selected tile and tiles located above the selected tile. This aperture creation operation is disclosed in [0069]-[0070].
Regarding claim 29,
Neeper discloses the limitations of claim 22 and also:
further comprising a conveyor robot, wherein, following the opening operation, the conveyor robot is configured to remove an item from the storage chamber via the aperture. See objections to the drawings and the specification along with the rejection of claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above. Neeper teaches the removal of an item via the aperture in [0069]-[0070]. In this office action we consider applicant’s conveyor robot to be an alternate name for the tray conveyor shuttle.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neeper in view of Wiezevich, Peter J., US 2,046,009 (hereinafter Wiezevich).
Neeper discloses:
An automated storage system (system 100: fig. 1), comprising:
a cold storage compartment (storage compartment 410: fig. 5b, [0069]; also see claim 16) having a plurality of tray guide rails (rails 540: fig. 5a, [0069]) and tray support racks (racks 520: fig. 5b, [0068]), the cold storage compartment having an access side (wall of insulated
blocks 533: fig. 5b, [0069]) comprising columns of insulated tiles (columns of insulated blocks, [0069]);
a tray shuttle compartment (420: fig. 5b, [0069]) adjacent to the storage compartment access side;
and a tray shuttle conveyor (gantry 552 and tray shuttle 452: fig. 5b) comprising a transport configured for translating horizontally or vertically within the tray shuttle compartment (vertical and horizontal movement of tray shuttle: [0069] and claim 16) and aligning with a tray accessible by an aperture created by the first robotic arm (combination of pin drive mechanism 512 and pin 506: fig. 5a, [0069]), wherein the tray shuttle compartment is adapted such that each tray support rack of the cold storage compartment is independently accessible by the tray shuttle in the tray shuttle compartment;Neeper discloses aligning the tray shuttle with the aperture created by first robot arm in [0048]-[0049] and [0070]-[0072].
an input-output module (i/o module 164: fig 3a, [0053]) for transferring a tray for storage to or from the cold storage compartment;
and a controller (controllers: fig. 14; system controller 170: fig. 1, [0053]) directing operation of the cold storage compartment, the tray shuttle and the input-output module.
However, Neeper does not disclose all aspects of:
a tray shuttle disposed within the tray shuttle compartment, the tray shuttle including: a first robotic arm configured with a projection to engage a first tile and a second robotic arm configured with a projection to engage a second tile at the top of one of the columns of tiles, whereby the first arm operates in the first direction to create an aperture through which trays can be retrieved from the storage compartment and the second arm operates in the direction opposite to the first arm to close the tiles after retrieval or storage of the tray;While Neeper discloses a tray shuttle 452 with a first robotic arm that performs as claimed, its first robotic arm is employed both to open and close apertures in the column of tiles and is not accompanied by a second arm. For this reason we must provide a rationale explaining the obviousness of a second such robotic arm.
an air conduit having one end connected to a refrigeration unit and one or more remaining sides connected to the storage compartment, the air conduit including openings to the storage compartment with projections extending from the openings into the air conduit to direct the flow of cold air from the refrigeration unit to the storage compartment;While these are conventional features of an HVAC system intended to cool a storage compartment, and while Neeper discloses a cold storage compartment that must be cooled by some such system, Neeper doesn’t explicitly disclose the refrigeration unit and the conduit and the projections and so we must invoke a teaching reference for these details.
Neeper teaches the missing aspect of the limitation:
a tray shuttle disposed within the tray shuttle compartment, the tray shuttle including: a first robotic arm configured with a projection to engage a first tile and a second robotic arm configured with a projection to engage a second tile at the top of one of the columns of tiles, whereby the first arm operates in the first direction to create an aperture through which trays can be retrieved from the storage compartment and the second arm operates in the direction opposite to the first arm to close the tiles after retrieval or storage of the tray;Applicant’s invention features two robot arm parts, one for opening an aperture and one for closing it whereas Neeper discloses a single arm, relying on it for both opening and closing, the latter assisted by gravity. Per MPEP 2144.04 VI. B. and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), we rely on duplication of parts as an obviousness rationale. The basis for the application of this rationale is that where a single robot arm may require additional time to perform both opening and closing operations, a second arm may accomplish the task more rapidly, with Neeper acknowledging in [0005] that closing the aperture rapidly is a strong motivator due to the ultra-cold conditions in the storage compartment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Neeper with a tray shuttle disposed within the tray shuttle compartment, the tray shuttle including: a first robotic arm configured with a projection to engage a first tile and a second robotic arm configured with a projection to engage a second tile at the top of one of the columns of tiles, whereby the first arm operates in the first direction to create an aperture through which trays can be retrieved from the storage compartment and the second arm operates in the direction opposite to the first arm to close the tiles after retrieval or storage of the tray, as also taught by Neeper, because an additional robot arm may increase the rapidity of the claimed aperture closure, which in turn will reduce thawing or exposure to moisture as Neeper explains in its [0005].
Wiezevich, an invention in the field of refrigerators, teaches:
an air conduit (conduit, claim 3) having one end connected to a refrigeration unit (cooling unit, claim 3) and one or more remaining sides connected to the storage compartment (storage compartment, claim 3), the air conduit including openings to the storage compartment with projections (louvered flaps 11: fig. 6), extending from the openings into the air conduit to direct the flow of cold air from the refrigeration unit to the storage compartment;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Neeper with an air conduit having one end connected to a refrigeration unit and one or more remaining sides connected to the storage compartment, the air conduit including openings to the storage compartment with projections extending from the openings into the air conduit to direct the flow of cold air from the refrigeration unit to the storage compartment, as taught by Wiezevich, because all these elements are widespread and commonplace features of cooling systems, as suggested by Wiezevich’s publication date of 1936.
Claims 23-25, 27-28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neeper in view of further case law obviousness rationales based on Neeper’s disclosure.
Regarding claim 23,
Neeper discloses the limitations of claim 22 but not all aspects of:
further comprising: a second robotic arm positioned above the first robotic arm, wherein, during a closing operation, the first and second robotic arms are configured to engage with distinct tiles of the subset and lower the subset downward to seal the aperture. Neeper only discloses a single robotic arm for both opening and closing.
Neeper teaches the missing aspect of the limitation:
further comprising: a second robotic arm positioned above the first robotic arm, wherein, during a closing operation, the first and second robotic arms are configured to engage with distinct tiles of the subset and lower the subset downward to seal the aperture.Applicant’s invention features two robot arm parts, one for opening an aperture and one for closing it whereas Neeper discloses only a single arm, relying on it for both opening and closing, the latter assisted by gravity. Per MPEP 2144.04 VI. B. and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), we rely on duplication of parts as an obviousness rationale. The basis for the application of this rationale is that where a single robot arm may require additional time to perform both opening and closing operations, a second arm may accomplish the task more rapidly, with Neeper acknowledging in [0005] that closing the aperture rapidly is a strong motivator due to the ultra-cold conditions in the storage compartment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Neeper further comprising: a second robotic arm positioned above the first robotic arm, wherein, during a closing operation, the first and second robotic arms are configured to engage with distinct tiles of the subset and lower the subset downward to seal the aperture, as also taught by Neeper, because an additional robot arm may increase the rapidity of the claimed aperture closure, which in turn will reduce thawing or moisture as Neeper explains in its [0005].
Regarding claim 24,
Neeper teaches the limitations of claim 23 but not all aspects of:
wherein, during the closing operation, the first and second robotic arms maintain a seal between each of the subset of tiles. While Neeper explains the importance of sealing and of rapidly accessing ultra-cold samples to prevent warming or unwanted moisture, Neeper does not explicitly disclose maintaining a seal between the tiles during closing the aperture. For this reason we must also invoke a case-law obviousness rationale for the claimed feature.
Neeper teaches the missing aspect of:
wherein, during the closing operation, the first and second robotic arms maintain a seal between each of the subset of tiles.Per MPEP 2144.04 V. E. and In re Dilnot, 319 F.2d 188, 138 USPQ 248 (CCPA 1963), the courts have held that “making continuous” is a rationale for obviousness. As Neeper has cited the importance of sealed compartments and maintaining temperature and moisture control in its compartments (e.g. in [0005]), and as Neeper may well be maintaining the seal as claimed without disclosing the step, we hold that a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to maintain the continuity of the seal during a closing operation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Neeper, wherein, during the closing operation, the first and second robotic arms maintain a seal between each of the subset of tiles, as also taught by Neeper, because the lack of a seal would allow other samples being stored to either experience unwanted thawing or moisture as explained in [0005].
Regarding claim 25,
Neeper teaches the limitations of claim 23 and also:
wherein, during the closing operation, the first robotic arm engages with the selected tile. The selected tile in this case is the same tile engaged with for opening. Neeper teaches this procedure in [0070].
Regarding claim 27,
Neeper teaches the limitations of claim 23 and also:
further comprising a plurality of columns of tiles integral to the wall of the storage chamber, the plurality of columns of tiles including the column of tiles. Neeper discloses a plurality of stacks of blocks (columns of tiles) in [0023].
Regarding claim 28,
Neeper teaches the limitations of claim 27 and also:
wherein the first and second robotic arms are configured to move horizontally to a selected one of the plurality of columns of tiles prior to an opening operation. Neeper teaches this horizontal movement in [0069].
Regarding claim 30,
Neeper teaches the limitations of claim 28 and also:
wherein the item is a tray supporting a plurality of biological samples.Neeper teaches this in [0002].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 26 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding dependent claim 26, while we have invoked a case law rationale for the obviousness of a teaching of a second robotic arm by reference Neeper employed for closing an aperture in a column of insulated tiles, we cannot invoke such a rationale for the particular use of the robotic arm to engage with a topmost tile of the claimed subset of tiles. Neeper only discloses the engagement of a first robotic arm with a bottommost tile of the tiles that it raises to create an aperture, and while, with a second robotic arm, it might have the capability of engaging with a topmost tile, in the absence of an explicit teaching to this effect and in the absence of a secondary reference structurally compatible with Neeper or a primary reference superior to Neeper that does teach the matter of the claim, we must consider that this limitation was neither found, nor taught, nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2012/0272500 is an example of art close to that of the applicant and primary reference Neeper, though it somewhat less anticipatory in the coverage of its features. Many other early examples of refrigerator art teach the cooling arrangements of claim 1, including US 2,107,076 and US 2,240,528.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS whose telephone number is (703)756-1828. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0830-1700.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at (571) 270-5565. 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.
/ERNESTO A SUAREZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3655A
/L.R.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights