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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 02/23/2024 has been acknowledged
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE102021209280.2, filed on 08/24/2021.
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 1-15 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 and 13 recites the term “the automatic storage” and “the drive”. There is insufficient antecedent basis as neither term was introduced prior in the claim. For examination purposes, “the automatic storage” will be read as “automatic storage” and “the drive” will be read as “a drive”.
Claim 7 recites the term “the respective inner edge and the outer edge”. There is insufficient antecedent basis as the term was not introduced prior in the claim or in previous dependency claims. For examination purposes, “the respective inner edge and the outer edge” will be read as “a respective inner edge and an outer edge”.
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(s) 1-11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO-2021059006-A1 (“Solovianenko”) in view of US-20190129371-A1 to Wagner et. al. (“Wagner”).
Regarding claim 13, Solovianenko teaches a storage system, comprising (Solovianenko Figs. 1a – 1b):
a track arrangement with several track rail sections (Solovianenko Fig. 1a ref 14, 16, 20, and 22 “ramps”);
vehicles which are self-driving (Solovianenko ref 2 “self-driven carriage”) on the track arrangement for the automatic storage and retrieval of containers in a storage rack arrangement which can be coupled to the track arrangement (Solovianenko Abstract), each of the vehicles comprising:
a frame with a lower side and with an upper side (Solovianenko Fig. 5 ref 59 “chassis”);
a first wheel set for the drive along a first axis (Solovianenko Abstract “a first wheel set (37) tor driving along a first axis (x)”);
and a second wheel set for the drive along a second axis which runs transversely to the first axis (Solovianenko Abstract “a second wheel set (43) for driving along a second axis (y) extending transverse to the first axis (x)”), the first wheel set and the second wheel set being at the lower side (Solovianenko Fig. 5);
a liftable and lowerable lifting table with a support surface (Solovianenko Abstract “a support surface (39) for carrying a bottom surface of a container (4)”), the liftable and lowerable lifting table being at the upper side (Solovianenko Fig. 5);
and containers (Solovianenko ref 4 “containers”) which can be placed onto the support surface of the self-driving vehicle and which can be deposited in the storage rack arrangement (Solovianenko Abstract).
Solovianenko does not teach that a vehicle comprises a holding device with holding surfaces which are adjacent to the support surface at an edge thereof and which at least partly and at least temporarily project away from the support surface. However, Wagner teaches that a vehicle comprises a holding device with holding surfaces which are adjacent to the support surface at an edge thereof and which at least partly and at least temporarily project away from the support surface (Wagner Fig. 2 ref 28 “paddles” and [0074], [0076] – [0077], and [0084] – [0085]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the system of Solovianenko to incorporate the teachings of Wagner such that a vehicle comprises a holding device with holding surfaces which are adjacent to the support surface at an edge thereof and which at least partly and at least temporarily project away from the support surface. Doing so would allow for movement control of the bin with respect to the carrier (Wagner [0077]).
With respect to claim 1, all limitations have been examined with respect to the system in claim 13. The storage system taught/disclosed in claim 13 can clearly perform the vehicle of claim 1. Therefore claim 1 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 2, Solovianenko as modified by Wagner teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. However, Solovianenko as modified by Wagner does not expressly disclose or otherwise teach that an angle between the support surface and the respective holding surfaces lies in a range of 120° to 165°. Nevertheless, Wagner at least suggests the idea that an angle between the support surface and the respective holding surfaces can lie in a range of 120° to 165° (Wagner [0077] “each paddle 48, 50 may be rotated 180 degrees to either urge a bin onto or off of a shelf, or (if both are actuated) to retain a bin on the carrier during transport.”). Further, the “mere scaling up” or “limitations relating to parameters” or “recitation of relative dimensions” is generally not patentably distinguishable from a prior art device with both functioning in the same manner. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to achieve such parameters of the angle in order to either urge a bin onto or off of a shelf, or retain a bin on the carrier during transport (Wagner [0077]).
Regarding claim 3, Solovianenko as modified by Wagner teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Wagner further discloses that at least one of the holding surfaces is mounted in a movable manner and can be brought into a release position and into a holding position, the at least one of the holding surfaces in the holding position projects beyond the support surface and encloses an angle with the support surface of at least 90° and at the most 180°, and the at least one of the holding surfaces in the release position does not essentially project beyond the support surface (Wagner Fig. 44A – 44E ref 648 & 650 and [0074] & [0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have further incorporate the teachings of Wagner to Solovianenko as modified by Wagner such that at least one of the holding surfaces is mounted in a movable manner and can be brought into a release position and into a holding position, the at least one of the holding surfaces in the holding position projects beyond the support surface and encloses an angle with the support surface of at least 90° and at the most 180°, and the at least one of the holding surfaces in the release position does not essentially project beyond the support surface. Doing so would allow for movement control of the bin with respect to the carrier (Wagner [0077]).
Regarding claim 4, Solovianenko as modified by Wagner teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 3. Wagner further discloses that the at least one of the holding surfaces comprises an outer edge and an inner edge, and the outer edge is liftable with respect to the inner edge for assuming the holding position (Wagner Fig. 2 ref 28 & Fig. 44A – 44E ref 648 & 650 and [0074], [0076] – [0077], and [0084] – [0085]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have further incorporate the teachings of Wagner to Solovianenko as modified by Wagner such that the at least one of the holding surfaces comprises an outer edge and an inner edge, and the outer edge is liftable with respect to the inner edge for assuming the holding position. Doing so would allow for movement control of the bin with respect to the carrier (Wagner [0077]).
Regarding claim 5, Solovianenko as modified by Wagner teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 4. Wagner further discloses that the at least one of the holding surfaces is pivotably connected to the frame at a respective inner edge thereof (Wagner Fig. 2 – 4 and [0074] “Each carrier unit 14 also includes a pair of paddles 28 on either end of the unit 14. Each paddle may be turned either upward to contain a bin on the unit 14, or turned downward to permit a bin to be loaded onto or removed from the unit 14”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have further incorporate the teachings of Wagner to Solovianenko as modified by Wagner such that the at least one of the holding surfaces is pivotably connected to the frame at a respective inner edge thereof. Doing so would allow for movement control of the bin with respect to the carrier (Wagner [0077]).
Regarding claim 6, Solovianenko as modified by Wagner teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 3. Wagner further discloses that the at least one of the holding surfaces is coupled to the frame and to the lifting table in a movable manner (Wagner Fig. 2), so that the at least one of the holding surfaces is moved on lifting the lifting table into the holding position and the at least one of the holding surfaces is moved on lowering the lifting table into the release position (Wagner Fig. 44A – 44E ref 648 & 650 and [0074] & [0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have further incorporate the teachings of Wagner to Solovianenko as modified by Wagner such that the at least one of the holding surfaces is coupled to the frame and to the lifting table in a movable manner, so that the at least one of the holding surfaces is moved on lifting the lifting table into the holding position and the at least one of the holding surfaces is moved on lowering the lifting table into the release position. Doing so would allow for movement control of the bin with respect to the carrier (Wagner [0077]).
Regarding claim 7, Solovianenko as modified by Wagner teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 6. Solovianenko further discloses that the at least one of the holding surfaces each comprises a pivot axis which lies between the respective inner edge and the outer edge, and the at least one of the holding surfaces is pivotably mounted with the lifting table at the pivot axis (Solovianenko Fig. 2 and [108] “The securing and centring system comprises in this embodiment two pairs of corresponding engaging elements 41. They are arranged at the support surface 39 in such a way that they are able to engage with receiving elements 41 at the bottom of the container 4. The engaging elements 41 of each pair are rotatable about the second axis y in mutually opposite directions, i.e. clockwise and counter-clockwise, respectively”).
Regarding claim 8, Solovianenko as modified by Wagner teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 6. Wagner further discloses that the at least one of the holding surfaces is pivotably connected to the frame at a respective inner edge thereof and the respective inner edge is arranged on the frame by way of at least one laterally displaceable pivot bearing (Wagner 5A – 6B and [0076] – [0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have further incorporate the teachings of Wagner to Solovianenko as modified by Wagner such that the at least one of the holding surfaces is pivotably connected to the frame at a respective inner edge thereof and the respective inner edge is arranged on the frame by way of at least one laterally displaceable pivot bearing. Doing so would allow for movement control of the bin with respect to the carrier (Wagner [0077]).
Regarding claim 9, Solovianenko as modified by Wagner teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 7. Solovianenko further discloses that the at least one of the holding surfaces is pivotably mounted on the lifting table by way of at least one laterally displaceable pivot bearing (Solovianenko Fig. 2 and [108] “The securing and centring system comprises in this embodiment two pairs of corresponding engaging elements 41. They are arranged at the support surface 39 in such a way that they are able to engage with receiving elements 41 at the bottom of the container 4. The engaging elements 41 of each pair are rotatable about the second axis y in mutually opposite directions, i.e. clockwise and counter-clockwise, respectively”).
Regarding claim 10, Solovianenko as modified by Wagner teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Wagner further discloses a movement device arranged on the frame, wherein at least one of the holding surfaces is pivotable by way of the movement device (Wagner [0076] – [0077] specifically “A pair of independently actuated paddles 48, 50 are also provided”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have further incorporate the teachings of Wagner to Solovianenko as modified by Wagner such that the vehicle has a movement device arranged on the frame, wherein at least one of the holding surfaces is pivotable by way of the movement device. Doing so would allow for movement control of the bin with respect to the carrier (Wagner [0077]).
Regarding claim 11, Solovianenko as modified by Wagner teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Wagner further discloses that the holding surfaces are provided on at least two sides of the support surface which are opposite one another, wherein the support surface and the holding surfaces at least temporarily form a trough which widens to the top (Wagner Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have further incorporate the teachings of Wagner to Solovianenko as modified by Wagner such that the holding surfaces are provided on at least two sides of the support surface which are opposite one another, wherein the support surface and the holding surfaces at least temporarily form a trough which widens to the top. Doing so would allow for movement control of the bin with respect to the carrier (Wagner [0077]).
Regarding claim 14, Solovianenko as modified by Wagner teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 13. Solovianenko further discloses at least one keep-down device which is arranged at least partly above at least one inclined section of at least one of the track rail sections, wherein a distance between the track rail section and the at least one keep-down device measured perpendicularly to the at least one track rail section exceeds a height of the respective vehicle with a container located thereon, only to the extent that the respective container can tilt to the support surface about an angle of at the most 20° without hitting the respective keep-down device (Solovianenko Fig. 1a – 1b and [0052] “Optionally, at least one of the first one-way ramps, second one- way ramps, third one-way ramps, and/or fourth one-way romps may have a slope angle of 5 to 20 degrees, preferably 12 to 17 degrees”).
Regarding claim 15, Solovianenko as modified by Wagner teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 14. Solovianenko further discloses that the track arrangement comprises track rail sections in different levels, wherein the at least one keep-down device is formed by a lower side of a track rail section of a level which runs above the at least one track rail section (Solovianenko Fig. 1a – 1b).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solovianenko in view of Wagner and further in view of CN-209481103-U to Zhang et. al. (“Zhang”).
Regarding claim 12, Solovianenko as modified by Wagner teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Solovianenko as modified by Wagner does not teach that at least one of the holding surfaces at a region which is away from the support surface is angularly bent or arched towards the support surface. However, Zhang teaches that at least one of the holding surfaces at a region which is away from the support surface is angularly bent or arched towards the support surface (Zhang Fig. 1, ref 70).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Zhang to Solovianenko as modified by Wagner such that at least one of the holding surfaces at a region which is away from the support surface is angularly bent or arched towards the support surface. Doing so would make it so that “the bearing part can stably lift” (Zhang Description).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON TOAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6163. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8-5:30 F1:8-12 F2: Off.
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, Scott Browne can be reached on 5712700151. 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.
/J.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/Hitesh Patel/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
7/31/25