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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/22/2024 was filed after the filing date of the Application on 05/31/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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:
“wherein the first plenum is configured to allow cooled air from the second plurality of horizontally directing air ducts to be drawn into the first plenum via a plurality of ventilation apertures” in claim 4,
“comprising a raised floor having a plurality of ventilation holes provided between the first plenum and the plurality of storage columns” in claim 5,
“the third air damper comprising a pressure sensor” in claim 11,
“wherein the storage volume comprises at least one temperature sensor” in claim 13,
“wherein the cooling system comprises a chiller to cool the air, and a fan to draw the air from the first plenum” in claim 16
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains more than 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 9-10, 15, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 10, the phrase “The system according to any of claim 7” is grammatically incorrect and for examination purposes will be interpreted as -- The system according to claim 7 --
Regarding claim 20, the phrase “The method according to claim 20” is understood to include a typographical error and for examination purposes will be interpreted as -- The method according to claim 19 --
Regarding claim 9, the phrase “wherein the plurality of downwardly directing air ducts are arranged” is grammatically incorrect and for examination purposes will be interpreted as -- wherein the plurality of downwardly directing air ducts is arranged --
Regarding claim 10, the phrase “wherein the plurality of vertically directing air ducts are arranged” is grammatically incorrect and for examination purposes will be interpreted as -- wherein the plurality of vertically directing air ducts is arranged --
Regarding claim 15, the phrase “wherein at least portions of the cooled airflow from the cooling system through the second plurality of horizontally directing air ducts provides a second horizontal air curtain” is grammatically incorrect and for examination purposes will be interpreted as -- wherein at least portions of the cooled airflow from the cooling system through the second plurality of horizontally directing air ducts provide a second horizontal air curtain --
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“heating element” in claim 2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL. —The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitations “heating element”. The term “heating element” invokes a claim interpretation governed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph), which requires a review of the specification to determine the appropriate structure, material or act to carry out the claimed limitation. However, the specification as originally filed, fails to describe a corresponding structure or technique by which the function of heating is performed. A mere restatement of the function does not suffice as a statement of structure. Thus, it does not appear that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention because the specification does not disclose a structure which is capable of performing the heating function. When a description of the structure, material or act is not provided or is not sufficient to perform the entire claimed function, or no association between the structure and the claimed function can be found in the specification, the written description fails to clearly define the boundaries of the claim.
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 1-22 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 19, the claims recite “a first plurality of transversally directing air ducts … the first plurality of horizontally directing air ducts” which renders the claim indefinite. As recited, the claims are confusing because it is not entirely clear if the disclosed “first plurality of transversally directing air ducts” is referring to the same structures as the disclosed “first plurality of horizontally directing air ducts” or to something entirely different. More clarity is requested.
For examination purposes, the disclosed “first plurality of transversally directing air ducts” and “first plurality of horizontally directing air ducts” will be interpreted as referring to the same structures.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the plurality of vertically directing air ducts” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “the plurality of vertically directing air ducts” will be interpreted as -- the plurality of downwardly directing air ducts --
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the second plurality of transversally directing air ducts” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes the phrase “the second plurality of transversally directing air ducts” will be interpreted as -- the second plurality of horizontally directing air ducts --
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the speed of the at least one fan” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “the controller is adapted to control the speed of the at least one fan” will be interpreted as -- the controller is adapted to control a speed of the at least one fan --
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the temperature of the cooled air” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “the temperature of the cooled air” will be interpreted as -- a temperature of the cooled air --
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the range” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “the range” will be interpreted as -- a range --
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the storage and retrieval system” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “the storage and retrieval system” will be interpreted as -- a storage and retrieval system --
Claim 19 recites the limitation “cooled air from the output of the cooling system” in line 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “the method comprising adjusting the cooling system to blow cooled air from the output of the cooling system” will be interpreted as -- the method comprising adjusting the cooling system to blow the cooled air from the output of the cooling system --
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites “the first plurality of horizontally directing air ducts being positioned to distribute the air horizontally below the horizontal rails to provide a first horizontal air curtain … and distributing the air transversally below the horizontal rails from the first plurality of transversally directing air ducts to provide the upper first transversal air curtain” which renders the claim indefinite. As recited, the claim is confusing because Applicant seems to be interchangeably using the terms transversal and horizontal and as a result it is not entirely clear if the disclosed “first horizontal air curtain” is referring to the same air curtain as the disclosed “upper first transversal air curtain”. More clarity is requested.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the upper first transversal air curtain” in line 31. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the relative distribution” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “adjusting the second air damper to control the relative distribution” will be interpreted as -- adjusting the second air damper to control a relative distribution --
Claim 20 recites the limitation “second portion of the cooled airflow” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “a relative distribution of the first portion of the cooled airflow and second portion of the cooled airflow” will be interpreted as -- a relative distribution of the first portion of the cooled airflow and the second portion of the cooled airflow --
Claim 22 recites the limitation “the range” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “the range” will be interpreted as -- a range --
Claim limitation “heating element” in claim 2 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 3-9, 12-13, 15-17, and 21 are also rejected due to dependency.
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 12-14, 16-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meuth et al. (US 20230194140 A1, herein after referred to as Meuth), in view of Chaussy et al. (US 4063432, herein after referred to as Chaussy), and in further view of Ibrahim (US 4106305).
Regarding claim 1, Meuth teaches an automated grid based storage and retrieval system (the system illustrated in Fig. 3), comprising: a framework structure (storage structure 1 Fig. 1) comprising upright members (upright members 3 Fig. 1) and a grid of horizontal rails (horizontal members 5 and 7 Fig. 1) provided at upper ends of the upright members (Fig. 1), the framework structure defining at least one storage volume (corresponds to the volume that accommodates all stacks 11 Fig. 1) below the horizontal rails (Fig. 1), the at least one storage volume comprising: a plurality of storage columns (stacks 11 Fig. 1) arranged adjacent one another (Fig. 1); a first plenum (corresponds to the space covered by the disclosed “false floor” in paragraph [0042] which accommodates outbound ducting 53) extending horizontally beneath the storage columns (Fig. 7 and paragraph [0042]); a first plurality of transversally directing air ducts (corresponds to the disclosed “outlets” of the upper branch of ducting 53 Fig. 7 as described in paragraph [0030]) connected to at least one fan (paragraph [0032]) adapted to draw air from outside the at least one storage volume (paragraphs [0028] and [0032] where the chilled air is drawn from chill plant 51 which is located outside of storage structure 1 Fig. 7), the first plurality of horizontally directing air ducts being positioned to distribute the air below the horizontal rails (Fig. 7); a cooling system (chill plant 51 Fig. 7) adapted to draw air from the first plenum (paragraph [0042]), cool the air (paragraph [0028]), and blow cooled air (disclosed “chilled air” in paragraph [0028]) from an output of the cooling system (corresponds to the inlet of ducting 53 Fig. 7 and paragraph [0028]) as a cooled airflow (paragraph [0028]); and a second plurality of horizontally directing air ducts (corresponds to the disclosed “outlets” of the lower branch of ducting 53 Fig. 7 as described in paragraph [0030]) adapted to receive the cooled airflow from the cooling system through a first air damper (corresponds to the “valve” associated with the lower branch of ducting 53 disclosed in paragraph [0034]), the second plurality of horizontally directing air ducts being positioned at a level (corresponds to the location of the lower branch of ducting 53 Fig. 7) below the first plurality of horizontally directing air ducts (Fig. 7) to distribute at least a first portion of the cooled airflow (corresponds to the portion of air that is distributed by the lower branch of ducting 53 Fig. 7 and paragraph [0030]).
Meuth teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “the at least one storage volume comprising a plurality of walls surrounding an outer extent of the plurality of storage columns”.
However, Chaussy teaches at least one storage volume (the volume enclosed by outside cladding 4 Fig. 1 corresponds to the storage volume of Meuth) comprising a plurality of walls (outside cladding 4, insulating lining 2, and inside cladding 3 Figs. 1-2) surrounding an outer extent of a plurality of storage columns (Figs. 1-2 where compartments 16 correspond to the plurality of storage columns of Meuth) to provide thermal insulation (Col. 3 lines 14-23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Meuth to include “the at least one storage volume comprising a plurality of walls surrounding an outer extent of the plurality of storage columns” in view of the teachings of Chaussy to provide thermal insulation.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the first plurality of horizontally directing air ducts to distribute the air horizontally to provide a first horizontal air curtain; the second plurality of horizontally directing air ducts to distribute the first portion of the cooled airflow horizontally above an uppermost layer of the storage columns”.
However, Ibrahim teaches a first plurality of horizontally directing air ducts (grid 36 Fig. 1 corresponds to the first plurality of horizontally directing air ducts of Meuth) to distribute air horizontally (Col. 4 lines 52-62) to provide a first horizontal air curtain (air layer 44 Fig. 1); a second plurality of horizontally directing air ducts (grid 26 Fig. 1 corresponds to the second plurality of horizontally directing air ducts of Meuth) to distribute a first portion of cooled airflow horizontally (Col. 4 lines 52-62 and Fig. 1 where air layer 42 corresponds to the first portion of cooled airflow of Meuth) above an uppermost layer of storage columns (Fig. 1 where display space 14 corresponds to the storage columns of Meuth) to increase the velocity of air flow across the products (Col. 1 lines 37-39).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “the first plurality of horizontally directing air ducts to distribute the air horizontally to provide a first horizontal air curtain; the second plurality of horizontally directing air ducts to distribute the first portion of the cooled airflow horizontally above an uppermost layer of the storage columns” in view of the teachings of Ibrahim to increase the velocity of air flow across the products.
Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings teach wherein the first plenum is configured to allow cooled air (disclosed “chilled air” in paragraph [0030] of Meuth) from the second plurality of horizontally directing air ducts to be drawn into the first plenum via the plurality of storage columns (paragraphs [0030] and [0042] of Meuth).
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings teach wherein the first plenum is configured to allow cooled air (disclosed “chilled air” in paragraph [0030] of Meuth) from the second plurality of horizontally directing air ducts to be drawn into the first plenum via a plurality of ventilation apertures (disclosed “apertures” in paragraph [0042] of Meuth).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings teach comprising a raised floor (disclosed “false floor” in paragraph [0042] of Meuth) having a plurality of ventilation holes (disclosed “apertures” in paragraph [0042] of Meuth) provided between the first plenum and the plurality of storage columns (paragraph [0042] of Meuth).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings teach comprising a second plenum (vertical duct 21 Fig. 1 of Chaussy) extending vertically between the outer extent of the plurality of storage columns and at least one of the plurality of walls (Fig. 1 of Chaussy).
Regarding claim 12, the combined teachings teach comprising a controller (paragraph [0062] of Meuth), the controller being adapted to control the air drawn from the first plenum through the cooling system (paragraphs [0042] and [0062] of Meuth) such that air in the first plenum is at a lower pressure (referring to paragraph [0032] of Meuth, a person skilled in the art would recognize that the disclosed “fan” associated with return ducting 55 would generate a low pressure in order to draw air in) than air above the storage columns (paragraphs [0032] and [0042] of Meuth).
Regarding claim 13, the combined teachings teach wherein the storage volume comprises at least one temperature sensor (temperature sensor 71 Fig. 7 of Meuth) and a controller (paragraph [0062] of Meuth), the controller being adapted to adjust airflow based on a temperature (the disclosed “measured” temperature in paragraph [0062] of Meuth) measured by the at least one temperature sensor (paragraph [0062] of Meuth).
Regarding claim 14, the combined teachings teach wherein the controller is configured to lower a temperature of the cooled air (corresponds to the disclosed “temperature of a fluid output” disclosed in paragraph [0062] of Meuth) from the output of the cooling system (paragraph [0062] of Meuth), when the temperature sensor registers a temperature (corresponds to the disclosed “measured” temperature in paragraph [0062] of Meuth) above a predetermined value (corresponds to the disclosed “desired temperatures” in paragraph [0062] of Meuth).
Regarding claim 15, the combined teachings teach wherein at least portions of the cooled airflow (corresponds to the air forming layer 42 Fig. 1 of Ibrahim) from the cooling system (evaporator coil 18 Fig. 1 of Ibrahim corresponds to the cooling system of Meuth) through the second plurality of horizontally directing air ducts (Fig. 1 of Ibrahim) provide a second horizontal air curtain (layer 42 Fig. 1 of Ibrahim) below the first horizontal air curtain (Fig. 1 of Ibrahim).
Regarding claim 16, the combined teachings teach wherein the cooling system comprises a chiller (chill plant 51 Fig. 7 of Meuth) to cool the air, and a fan (fan 24 Fig. 1 of Chaussy) to draw the air from the first plenum (Fig. 1 of Chaussy where lower duct 14 corresponds to the first plenum of Meuth).
Regarding claim 17, the combined teachings teach wherein the system is adapted to hold a freezing storage volume temperature (disclosed “freezer temperature” in paragraph [0035] of Meuth) in the storage volume (paragraph [0035] of Meuth).
Regarding claim 19, Meuth teaches a method (paragraph [0004]) of controlling a storage volume temperature (corresponds to the temperature of the volume that accommodates all stacks 11 Fig. 1) in a storage and retrieval system (the system illustrated in Fig. 3) comprising: a framework structure (storage structure 1 Fig. 1) comprising upright members (upright members 3 Fig. 1) and a grid of horizontal rails (horizontal members 5 and 7 Fig. 1) provided at upper ends of the upright members (Fig. 1), the framework structure defining at least one storage volume (corresponds to the volume that accommodates all stacks 11 Fig. 1) below the horizontal rails (Fig. 1), the at least one storage volume comprising: a plurality of storage columns (stacks 11 Fig. 1) arranged adjacent one another (Fig. 1); a first plenum (corresponds to the space covered by the disclosed “false floor” in paragraph [0042] which accommodates outbound ducting 53) extending horizontally beneath the storage columns (Fig. 7 and paragraph [0042]); a first plurality of transversally directing air ducts (corresponds to the disclosed “outlets” of the upper branch of ducting 53 Fig. 7 as described in paragraph [0030]) connected to at least one fan (paragraph [0032]) adapted to draw air from outside the at least one storage volume (paragraphs [0028] and [0032] where the chilled air is drawn from chill plant 51 which is located outside of storage structure 1 Fig. 7), the first plurality of horizontally directing air ducts being positioned to distribute the air below the horizontal rails (Fig. 7); a cooling system (chill plant 51 Fig. 7) adapted to draw air from the first plenum (paragraph [0042]), cool the air (paragraph [0028]), and blow cooled air (disclosed “chilled air” in paragraph [0028]) from an output of the cooling system (corresponds to the inlet of ducting 53 Fig. 7 and paragraph [0028]) as a cooled airflow (paragraph [0028]); and a second plurality of horizontally directing air ducts (corresponds to the disclosed “outlets” of the lower branch of ducting 53 Fig. 7 as described in paragraph [0030]) adapted to receive the cooled airflow from the cooling system through a first air damper (corresponds to the “valve” associated with the lower branch of ducting 53 disclosed in paragraph [0034]), the second plurality of horizontally directing air ducts being positioned at a level (corresponds to the location of the lower branch of ducting 53 Fig. 7) below the first plurality of horizontally directing air ducts (Fig. 7) to distribute at least a first portion of the cooled airflow (corresponds to the portion of air that is distributed by the lower branch of ducting 53 Fig. 7 and paragraph [0030]), the method comprising adjusting the cooling system to blow the cooled air from the output of the cooling system (paragraph [0062]) as the cooled airflow at a first temperature (disclosed “specified temperature” in paragraph [0028]); adjusting the first air damper to control the first portion of the cooled airflow (paragraphs [0034] and [0062]), thereby controlling a speed of the cooled airflow (paragraphs [0034] and [0062] where a person skilled in the art would recognize that varying the opening degree of the valve would affect the air flow rate which would result in varying the airflow speed) through the plurality of storage columns (paragraphs [0034] and [0062]), and controlling the storage volume temperature in the plurality of storage columns based on the first temperature and the speed of the cooled airflow through the plurality of storage columns (paragraphs [0034] and [0062]); and adjusting a speed of the at least one fan (paragraph [0062]) to draw air from outside the at least one storage volume (paragraphs [0028] and [0032] where the chilled air is drawn from chill plant 51 which is located outside of storage structure 1 Fig. 7), and distributing the air below the horizontal rails from the first plurality of transversally directing air ducts (Fig. 7).
Meuth teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “the at least one storage volume comprising a plurality of walls surrounding an outer extent of the plurality of storage columns”.
However, Chaussy teaches at least one storage volume (the volume enclosed by outside cladding 4 Fig. 1 corresponds to the storage volume of Meuth) comprising a plurality of walls (outside cladding 4, insulating lining 2, and inside cladding 3 Figs. 1-2) surrounding an outer extent of a plurality of storage columns (Figs. 1-2 where compartments 16 correspond to the plurality of storage columns of Meuth) to provide thermal insulation (Col. 3 lines 14-23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method of Meuth to include “the at least one storage volume comprising a plurality of walls surrounding an outer extent of the plurality of storage columns” in view of the teachings of Chaussy to provide thermal insulation.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the first plurality of horizontally directing air ducts to distribute the air horizontally to provide a first horizontal air curtain; the second plurality of horizontally directing air ducts to distribute the first portion of the cooled airflow horizontally above an uppermost layer of the storage columns, the method comprising the air having a second temperature, and distributing the air transversally from the first plurality of transversally directing air ducts to provide the upper first transversal air curtain”.
However, Ibrahim teaches a first plurality of horizontally directing air ducts (grid 36 Fig. 1 corresponds to the first plurality of horizontally directing air ducts of Meuth) to distribute air horizontally (Col. 4 lines 52-62) to provide a first horizontal air curtain (air layer 44 Fig. 1); a second plurality of horizontally directing air ducts (grid 26 Fig. 1 corresponds to the second plurality of horizontally directing air ducts of Meuth) to distribute a first portion of cooled airflow horizontally (Col. 4 lines 52-62 and Fig. 1 where air layer 42 corresponds to the first portion of cooled airflow of Meuth) above an uppermost layer of storage columns (Fig. 1 where display space 14 corresponds to the storage columns of Meuth), a method (the method disclosed in Col. 2 lines 18-55 corresponds to the method of Meuth) comprising air having a second temperature (air layer 44 Fig. 1 and Col. 5 lines 1-10), and distributing the air transversally from the first plurality of transversally directing air ducts to provide the upper first transversal air curtain (Fig. 1) to dissipate radiant heat impinging on products (Col. 5 lines 1-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method of the combined teachings to include “the first plurality of horizontally directing air ducts to distribute the air horizontally to provide a first horizontal air curtain; the second plurality of horizontally directing air ducts to distribute the first portion of the cooled airflow horizontally above an uppermost layer of the storage columns, the method comprising the air having a second temperature, and distributing the air transversally from the first plurality of transversally directing air ducts to provide the upper first transversal air curtain” in view of the teachings of Ibrahim to dissipate radiant heat impinging on products.
Claims 2 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meuth, Chaussy, and Ibrahim as applied to claims 1 and 19 above, and further in view of Sekine et al. (JP2006275326A, herein after referred to as Sekine).
Regarding claim 2, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the system comprises a heating element to heat up the air drawn from outside the storage volume before distributing the air horizontally below the horizontal rails”.
However, Sekine teaches wherein a system (thermostatic chamber 1 Fig. 2 corresponds to the system of Meuth) comprises a heating element (heater 16 Fig. 2) to heat up air drawn from outside a storage volume (paragraph [0042] and Fig. 2 where storage chamber 6 corresponds to the storage volume of Meuth) before distributing the air horizontally (Fig. 2 where it is understood that the air is flowing horizontally in duct 5) below horizontal rails (Fig. 2 where the top surface of heat insulating box 2 corresponds to the horizontal rails of Meuth) to control the discharge temperature of the circulating air to a predetermined temperature (paragraph [0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein the system comprises a heating element to heat up the air drawn from outside the storage volume before distributing the air horizontally below the horizontal rails” in view of the teachings of Sekine to control the discharge temperature of the circulating air to a predetermined temperature.
Regarding claim 21, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the air drawn from outside the storage volume is heated before being distributed horizontally below the horizontal rails”.
However, Sekine teaches wherein air drawn from outside a storage volume (paragraph [0042] and Fig. 2 where storage chamber 6 corresponds to the storage volume of Meuth) is heated before being distributed horizontally (Fig. 2 where it is understood that the air is flowing horizontally in duct 5) below horizontal rails (Fig. 2 where the top surface of heat insulating box 2 corresponds to the horizontal rails of Meuth) to control the discharge temperature of the circulating air to a predetermined temperature (paragraph [0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method of the combined teachings to include “wherein the air drawn from outside the storage volume is heated before being distributed horizontally below the horizontal rails” in view of the teachings of Sekine to control the discharge temperature of the circulating air to a predetermined temperature.
Regarding claim 22, the combined teachings teach wherein the air drawn from outside the storage volume is heated to a non-freezing temperature (paragraphs [0036] and [0037] of Sekine).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the non-freezing temperature is preferably in a range of 2-
10
0
C”.
However, Sekine does disclose heating the drawn outside air to a non-freezing temperature of
58
0
C (paragraph [0037]).
Thus, “the non-freezing temperature is preferably in a range of 2-
10
0
C” is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is a non-freezing temperature in “a range of 2-
10
0
C”.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. heating drawn outside air to a non-freezing temperature, was disclosed in the prior art by Sekine, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide “the non-freezing temperature is preferably in a range of 2-
10
0
C”.
Claims 7-10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meuth, Chaussy, and Ibrahim as applied to claims 1 and 19 above, and further in view of Serenari et al. (US 20240210048 A1, herein after referred to as Serenari).
Regarding claim 7, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “comprising: a plurality of downwardly directing air ducts connected to the output of the cooling system through a second air damper, the plurality of downwardly directing air ducts being positioned to distribute a second portion of the cooled airflow downwards into the second plenum”.
However, Serenari teaches comprising: a plurality of downwardly directing air ducts (apparatuses 1C Fig. 1A) connected to an output (the output of the disclosed “air handling unit” in paragraph [0169] corresponds to the output of the cooling system of Meuth) of a cooling system (paragraph [0171] and Fig. 1A where the disclosed “air handling unit” corresponds to the cooling system of Meuth) through a second air damper (dampers 15A located at the inlets of apparatuses 1C Fig. 1B), the plurality of downwardly directing air ducts being positioned to distribute a second portion of cooled airflow (corresponds to the downward arrows leaving apparatuses 1C Fig. 1A) downwards into a second plenum (Fig. 1A and paragraph [0177] where cooled air leaving apparatuses 1C is directed downwards to be collected in the disclosed “false ceiling” through lower air intakes 38A where the disclosed “false ceiling” corresponds to the second plenum of Chaussy) to compensate for the natural tendency of hot air to rise upwards and cold air to fall downwards (paragraph [0172]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “comprising: a plurality of downwardly directing air ducts connected to the output of the cooling system through a second air damper, the plurality of downwardly directing air ducts being positioned to distribute a second portion of the cooled airflow downwards into the second plenum” in view of the teachings of Serenari to compensate for the natural tendency of hot air to rise upwards and cold air to fall downwards.
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings teach comprising a controller (disclosed “electronic regulation system” in paragraph [0192] of Serenari) adapted to adjust the first air damper (paragraphs [0189] to [0192] and Fig. 1B of Serenari where dampers 15A located at the inlets of apparatuses 1A correspond to the first damper of Meuth) and the second air damper to control a relative distribution (corresponds to the air distribution described in paragraphs [0189] to [0192] of Serenari) of the first portion of the cooled airflow and the second portion of the cooled airflow (paragraphs [0189] to [0192] and Fig. 1A of Serenari where the air leaving apparatuses 1A corresponds to the first portion of the cooled air of Meuth).
Regarding claim 9, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “wherein the plurality of downwardly directing air ducts is arranged below the second plurality of horizontally directing air ducts”.
However, Applicant has not disclosed that having “wherein the plurality of downwardly directing air ducts is arranged below the second plurality of horizontally directing air ducts” does anything more than produce the predictable result of generating both a vertical and horizontal cooling flow below the rails. Since it has been held that mere rearrangement of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04 VI. C, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings and meet the claimed limitations in order to provide the predictable results of generating both a vertical and horizontal cooling flow below the rails.
Regarding claim 10, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “wherein the plurality of downwardly directing air ducts is arranged alongside the second plurality of horizontally directing air ducts”.
However, Applicant has not disclosed that having “wherein the plurality of downwardly directing air ducts is arranged alongside the second plurality of horizontally directing air ducts” does anything more than produce the predictable result of generating both a vertical and horizontal cooling flow below the rails. Since it has been held that mere rearrangement of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04 VI. C, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings and meet the claimed limitations in order to provide the predictable results of generating both a vertical and horizontal cooling flow below the rails.
Regarding claim 20, the combined teachings teach wherein the storage and retrieval system comprises a second plenum (vertical duct 21 Fig. 1 of Chaussy) extending vertically between the outer extent of the plurality of storage columns and at least one of the plurality of walls (Fig. 1 of Chaussy).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the storage and retrieval system comprises a plurality of downwardly directing air ducts connected to the output of the cooling system through a second air damper, the plurality of downwardly directing air ducts being positioned to distribute a second portion of the cooled airflow downwards into the second plenum, wherein the adjusting of the first air damper to control the first portion of the cooled airflow further comprises: adjusting the second air damper to control a relative distribution of the first portion of the cooled airflow and the second portion of the cooled airflow”.
However, Serenari teaches wherein a storage and retrieval system (the system illustrated in Fig. 1A corresponds to the system of Meuth) comprises a plurality of downwardly directing air ducts (apparatuses 1C Fig. 1A) connected to an output (the output of the disclosed “air handling unit” in paragraph [0169] corresponds to the output of the cooling system of Meuth) of a cooling system (paragraph [0171] and Fig. 1A where the disclosed “air handling unit” corresponds to the cooling system of Meuth) through a second air damper (dampers 15A located at the inlets of apparatuses 1C Fig. 1B), the plurality of downwardly directing air ducts being positioned to distribute a second portion of cooled airflow (corresponds to the downward arrows leaving apparatuses 1C Fig. 1A) downwards into a second plenum (Fig. 1A and paragraph [0177] where cooled air leaving apparatuses 1C is directed downwards to be collected in the disclosed “false ceiling” through lower air intakes 38A where the disclosed “false ceiling” corresponds to the second plenum of Chaussy), wherein adjusting of a first air damper (paragraphs [0189] to [0192] and Fig. 1B where dampers 15A located at the inlets of apparatuses 1A correspond to the first damper of Meuth) to control a first portion of a cooled airflow (paragraphs [0189] to [0192] and Fig. 1A where the air leaving apparatuses 1A corresponds to the first portion of the cooled airflow of Meuth) further comprises: adjusting the second air damper to control a relative distribution (corresponds to the air distribution described in paragraphs [0189] to [0192]) of the first portion of the cooled airflow and the second portion of the cooled airflow (paragraphs [0189] to [0192] and Fig. 1A) to compensate for the natural tendency of hot air to rise upwards and cold air to fall downwards (paragraph [0172]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method of the combined teachings to include “wherein the storage and retrieval system comprises a plurality of downwardly directing air ducts connected to the output of the cooling system through a second air damper, the plurality of downwardly directing air ducts being positioned to distribute a second portion of the cooled airflow downwards into the second plenum, wherein the adjusting of the first air damper to control the first portion of the cooled airflow further comprises: adjusting the second air damper to control a relative distribution of the first portion of the cooled airflow and the second portion of the cooled airflow” in view of the teachings of Serenari to compensate for the natural tendency of hot air to rise upwards and cold air to fall downwards.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meuth, Chaussy, and Ibrahim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoo et al. (KR20170088537A, herein after referred to as Yoo) and Tatsumi et al. (US 20220214071 A1, herein after referred to as Tatsumi).
Regarding claim 11, the combined teachings teach comprising a controller (paragraph [0062] of Meuth) and a third air damper (corresponds to the “valve” associated with the upper branch of ducting 53 disclosed in paragraph [0034] of Meuth), the third air damper arranged between the at least one fan and the first plurality of transversally directing air ducts (paragraphs [0032] and [0034] of Meuth), a sensor (paragraph [0061] of Meuth), and the controller is adapted to control a speed of the at least one fan (paragraph [0062] of Meuth).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the third air damper comprising a pressure sensor”.
However, Yoo teaches a third air damper (damper 30 Fig. 6 corresponds to the third damper of Meuth) comprising a pressure sensor (pressure sensing means 43 Fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “the third air damper comprising a pressure sensor” in view of the teachings of Yoo to provide a compact unit.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the controller is adapted to control the speed of the at least one fan based on a predetermined pressure level”.
However, Tatsumi teaches a controller (main controller 51 Fig. 5 corresponds to the controller of Meuth) is adapted to control a speed (the disclosed “rotation speed” of first fan 21 Fig. 5 and paragraph [0070] corresponds to the fan speed of Meuth) of at least one fan (first fan 21 Fig. 5 corresponds to the fan of Meuth) based on a predetermined pressure level (disclosed “predetermined range” in paragraph [0070]) to eliminate excess power consumption occurring in the fan (paragraph [0070]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “the controller is adapted to control the speed of the at least one fan based on a predetermined pressure level” in view of the teachings of Tatsumi to eliminate excess power consumption occurring in the fan.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meuth, Chaussy, and Ibrahim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Neuhaus et al. (DE3405584C2, herein after referred to as Neuhaus).
Regarding claim 18, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein a temperature of the air being drawn from outside the storage volume is in a range of
-
2
0
C to +
10
0
C”.
However, Neuhaus teaches wherein a temperature of the air (corresponds to the disclosed “outside air temperatures” of paragraph [5] of page 5) being drawn from outside a storage volume (the volume of the disclosed “room” in paragraph [4] of page 2 corresponds to the storage volume of Meuth) is in a range of
-
2
0
C to +
10
0
C (paragraph [5] of page 5 where it is disclosed that outside temperatures can be below
12
0
C) to provide a cooling unit that can operate with very low power consumption when the outside temperature is cold (paragraph [2] of page 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein a temperature of the air being drawn from outside the storage volume is in a range of
-
2
0
C to +
10
0
C” in view of the teachings of Neuhaus to provide a cooling unit that can operate with very low power consumption when the outside temperature is cold.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMBA NMN GAYE whose telephone number is (571)272-8809. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 4:30AM to 2:30PM.
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, Jerry -Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 571-270-5054. 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.
/SAMBA NMN GAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights