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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “141”, “133b”, “134a”, “134b”, “135a” and “135b”. Also, in Fig. 10 “133b” points to two different items.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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 34-38 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.
Claim 4 recites “at least one direction-change assembly” in Line 15 of the Claim. It is not clear if there can be more than one “direction-change assembly” as recited in Line 15 or “direction-change assembly” is singular as recited in Line 7 of the claim rendering the claim indefinite. For examination purposes, “at least one direction change assembly” is being interpreted as “the direction change assembly”.
The remaining claims are rejected because they depend on a rejected claim.
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 20-28, 31-36 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ingram-Tedd et al. 2019/0161273.
In Re Claim 20, Ingram-Tedd et al. teach a load handling device (100) for lifting and moving storage containers (106) stacked in a grid based storage system framework structure including a first set of parallel rails or tracks and a second set of parallel rails or tracks extending substantially perpendicularly to the first set of rails or tracks in a substantially horizontal plane to form a grid having a grid pattern with a plurality of grid spaces, (abstract) wherein the grid is supported by a set of uprights (See Uprights, Fig. 5) to form a plurality of vertical storage locations beneath the grid for containers to be stacked between and be guided by the uprights in a vertical direction through the plurality of grid spaces, (See Fig. 5) the load handling device comprising: a skeleton including a frame (Body shown Fig. 11-13) defining a volume having an upper portion (Upper portion shown, Fig. 11-13), a lower portion (Lower portion connected to slides 210, Fig. 11-13), and a middle halo (Outer rim shown in Fig. 11-13 between top portion and bottom portion) between the upper portion and the lower portion; a first set of wheels (200) arranged on the lower part of the skeleton and a second set of wheels (200) arranged on the lower part of the skeleton, the first set of wheels being configured and arranged to engage with a first set of parallel tracks and the second set of wheels being configured and arranged to engage with a second set of parallel tracks; (see Fig. 5) and a direction-change assembly (300) arranged to raise or lower the first set of wheels with respect to the skeleton, and or lower or raise the second set of wheels with respect to the skeleton to engage and disengage the first and second sets of wheels with the first and second sets of parallel tracks, the direction-change assembly being located between the middle halo and the first set of wheels and or the second set of wheels, and wherein the direction-change assembly includes a cam mechanism (300, 310) (Fig. 11-13). (Paragraph 72 and 75)
In Re Claim 21, Ingram-Tedd teaches a wheel chassis (Wheel panel shown, Fig. 11), wherein the cam mechanism is fixed directly to the wheel chassis (See Fig. 12) for mounting a pair of respective first set of wheels or second set of wheels.
In Re Claim 22, Ingram-Tedd teaches a fixed brace (moveable panels, Paragraph 77) constrained by one or more mountings (232) on the skeleton to move only in a vertical direction. (Paragraph 77)
In Re Claim 23, Ingram-Tedd teaches a wherein the direction-change assembly is configured and arranged to raise or lower the first set of wheels and synchronously, and respectively, lower or raise the second set of wheels with respect to the skeleton. (See Paragraph 77, “at the same time”)
In Re Claim 24, Ingram-Tedd teaches wherein the cam mechanism comprises: engagement means between a traveler (300) and a fixed brace (310). (Fig. 13a, Fig. 13b)
In Re Claim 25, Ingram-Tedd teaches a single cam arrangement, or a double cam arrangement, or a triple cam arrangement. (See Fig. 13a, 13b)
In Re Claim 26, Ingram-Tedd teaches wherein the cam mechanism is configured and arranged in a single vertical plane between the middle halo and a respective pair of wheels. (See Fig. 12)
In Re Claim 27, Ingram-Tedd teaches at least a single motor, wherein the direction-change assembly is operated by the single motor, or by more than one motor (Paragraph 76). (See Fig. 13a, 13b)
In Re Claim 28, Ingram-Tedd teaches a drive belt, wherein respective pairs of the first set of wheels and the second set of wheels are driven by the drive belt, and the cam mechanism is located within an area defined by a path of the drive belt. (See Paragraph 79)
In Re Claim 31, Ingram-Tedd teaches wherein at least a part of the cam mechanism includes 3-D printed features, and/or is substantially topologically optimized. (See Fig. 12 and 13)
In Re Claim 32, Ingram-Tedd teaches wherein the load handling device comprises: a lifting device (104, Paragraph 63 and 64) supported by the upper portion of the skeleton, for lifting containers into the volume.
In Re Claim 33, Ingram-Tedd teaches a method of changing the engagement of sets of wheels (200) with a track, of a load handling device (Fig. 12) having a skeleton including a frame (Body shown Fig. 11-13) defining a volume having an upper portion (Upper portion shown, Fig. 11-13), a lower portion (Lower portion connected to slides shown, Fig. 11-13), and a middle halo (Outer rim shown in Fig. 11-13 between top portion and bottom portion) between the upper portion and the lower portion; a first set of wheels (200, Fig. 10-13) arranged on the lower part of the skeleton and a second set of wheels (200, Fig. 10-13) arranged on the lower part of the skeleton, the first set of wheels being configured and arranged to engage with a first set of parallel tracks and the second set of wheels being configured and arranged to engage with a second set of parallel tracks; (Abstract) and a direction-change assembly (300, 310, Fig. 11-13) arranged to raise or lower the first set of wheels with respect to the skeleton, and or lower or raise the second set of wheels with respect to the skeleton to engage and disengage the first and second sets of wheels with the first and second sets of parallel tracks, (Paragraph 74) the direction-change assembly being located between the middle halo and the first set of wheels and or the second set of wheels, (Fig. 11-13) and wherein the direction-change assembly includes a cam mechanism (300, 310), where the load handling device operates on a grid framework structure including tracks, (Paragraph 74) the method comprising: applying a force to a traveler (pin, Paragraph 76) of the direction-change assembly in a first direction F1, causing cam mechanism to move to a first limit (end of cam 310, Fig. 11-13); (Paragraph 76) or applying a force to the traveler of the direction-change assembly in a second direction F2, causing cam mechanism to move to a second limit (end of cam 310, Fig. 11-13); (Paragraph 76)
In Re Claim 34, as best understood, Ingram-Tedd teaches a kit of parts for modular assembly of a load handling device having a skeleton including a frame (Body shown Fig. 11-13) defining a volume having (Upper portion shown, Fig. 11-13), a lower portion (Lower portion connected to slides 210, Fig. 11-13), and a middle halo (Outer rim shown in Fig. 11-13 between top portion and bottom portion) between the upper portion and the lower portion; a first set of wheels (200) arranged on the lower part of the skeleton and a second set of wheels (200) arranged on the lower part of the skeleton, the first set of wheels being configured and arranged to engage with a first set of parallel tracks (See Fig. 5 and 6) and the second set of wheels (See Fig. 5 and 6) being configured and arranged to engage with a second set of parallel tracks; (See Fig. 5 and 6) and a direction-change assembly (300, 310) arranged to raise or lower the first set of wheels with respect to the skeleton, (Paragraph 74) and or lower or raise the second set of wheels with respect to the skeleton to engage and disengage the first and second sets of wheels with the first and second sets of parallel tracks, (Paragraph 74) the direction-change assembly being located between the middle halo and the first set of wheels and or the second set of wheels, (Fig. 11-13) and wherein the direction-change assembly includes a cam mechanism (300, 310), the kit comprising: the skeleton, the first set of wheels and the second set of wheels, wherein the skeleton is configured to be mounted on the first set of wheels and the second set of wheels; (Fig. 11-13) and at least one direction-change assembly including at least one cam mechanism, each cam mechanism having a traveler (Pin, Paragraph 74), a fixed brace (310), a follower (arm shown, Fig. 11-13) and a cam pathway (Slot of 310, Fig. 11-13).
In Re Claim 35, Ingram-Tedd teaches at least two cam mechanisms (Fig. 13a) and a transfer belt (Paragraph 79).
In Re Claim 36, Ingram-Tedd teaches, comprising: at least one direction change motor (Paragraph 76).
In Re Claim 38, Ingram-Tedd teaches, comprising at least one of: a set of wheels (200, Fig. 11-13), a drive assembly, a gripper assembly, a lifting assembly, a communications system, and/or a sensor means.
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 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ingram-Tedd and in view of Kensil 2019/0229003.
In Re Claim 29, Ingram-Tedd teaches the device of Claim 20 as discussed above.
Ingram-Tedd does not teach sensing means for determining engagement of the first set of wheels or second set of wheels with the parallel tracks.
However, Kensil teaches a sensing means (31a, 31b, 31c, 31d) for determining engagement of the first set of wheels or second set of wheels with the parallel tracks (22a). (Paragraph 32)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a sensing means to the device of Ingram-Tedd as taught by Kensil with a reasonable expectation for success in order to drive more accurately.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ingram-Tedd and in view of Pankonien et al. 12,140,414.
In Re Claim 37, Ingram-Tedd teaches the device of Claim 34 as discussed above.
Ingram-Tedd is silent concerning at least one part has 3-D printed features.
However, Pankonien et al. teach at least one part has 3-D printed features. (Claim 5)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use a part comprising 3-D printed features in the kit of Ingram-Tedd as taught by Pankonien et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to produce less waste during production.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 30 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Fryer et al., Fjeldheim et al., and Austrheim teach load handling devices operating on a grid with a first set of wheels and a second set of wheels and a direction change assembly.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GLENN F MYERS whose telephone number is (571)270-1160. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 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 571-272-7097. 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.
GLENN F. MYERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3652
/GLENN F MYERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3652