The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The terminal disclaimer filed on 9/08/26 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent 12,071,302 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 16, 17 and 20-30 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 16, 4th-to-last line, the recitation “the vertical direction” lacks antecedent basis;
and last line, it is not clear if the recitation “a vertical direction” is intended to refer to the vertical direction previously recited.
This also applies to the last subparagraph of claim 30.
Also in claim 30, lines 12 and 13, it is not clear if the recitations “a first opening” and “a second opening” are the same as “an opening of the hoist frame” and “an opening of the lifting frame” previously recited in lines 8 and 9, respectively.
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 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindbo et al (WO 2017/081275, previously cited) in view of Hognaland et al (WO 2017/129384).
Lindbo discloses a method of handling a storage container 10 using a container handling vehicle 330 (Figs. 10a-d) for picking up storage containers from a three-dimensional grid of a storage system 300 (see at least Figs. 10c-d), the container handling vehicle comprising a “vehicle module”, as broadly recited (not explicitly identified; includes at least the lower, wheeled portion of the vehicle), a “hoist frame”, as broadly recited (again, not explicitly identified but includes at least the upper portion of the vehicle surrounding opening 40, a hoist mechanism 44, and a lifting frame 139, the method comprising:
using the lifting frame to releasably connect to a storage container among the storage containers (Fig. 10a);
lifting the storage container to a container receiving space below the hoist frame, such that an access perimeter of an opening 40 of the hoist frame is in alignment with an access perimeter of an opening of the lifting frame, the alignment forming a through-going opening from the container handling vehicle to an interior of the storage container (Fig. 10b); and
picking one or more product items from an interior of the storage container (Figs. 10c-d), wherein
the hoist frame includes a first opening 40 defining the first access perimeter;
the lifting frame includes a second opening (not separately identified but readily apparent in at least Fig. 10a);
the storage container includes a third opening in a top of the storage container (not separately identified but readily apparent in at least Fig. 10a); and
the first opening, the second opening, and the third opening have a substantially equal vertical projection (Fig. 10b), and
wherein the hoist frame comprises a first band guiding assembly for changing the direction of a first lifting band from a substantially horizontal direction to [the] a vertical direction, and a second band guiding assembly for changing the direction of a second lifting band from a substantially horizontal direction to [a] the vertical direction (not separately identified but readily apparent in at least Fig. 10a; i.e., the pulley/sheave shown in the figure around which a lifting band is wrapped, noting that the other lifting bands would clearly have the same arrangement).
Lindbo does not show that the hoist frame also comprises a first arm and a second arm, wherein the first and second band guiding assemblies are connected to a distal end of the first arm and to a distal end of the second arm, respectively.
However, the examiner notes that providing pulleys or sheaves on distal ends of respective “arms”, as broadly recited, is generally well known in the art.
For example, Hognaland shows in the same environment a container handling vehicle 1 having a hoisting frame at an upper portion thereof comprising guide rods 20 (considered to be “arms”, as broadly recited and absent any structural limitations of the term) each having at a distal end a direction changing means (i.e., a pulley or sheave) for changing the direction of a lifting band 12 from a substantially horizontal direction to a vertical direction, wherein the lifting bands are part of a hoist mechanism of the hoist frame that is connected to a lifting frame 21 which in turn releasably connects to a container 2 to be lifted (Figs. 4a, 5a-c, page 3:30-35 and page 11:10-16).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Lindbo by providing each of the first and second band guiding assemblies on a distal end of respective first and second arms, as shown by Hognaland, to provide a simple, compact and effective means of raising and lowering the lifting frame.
Claims 16, 17 and 20-29 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 30 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The examiner notes that while claim 30 has been amended to incorporate the limitations of claims 18 and 19 in the same manner that claim 16 has been amended, claim 30 is broader than claim 16 and is not allowable merely because such limitations have been added thereto.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Keenan whose telephone number is (571)272-6925. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at 571-270-5565. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/James Keenan/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3652
9/21/26
Prosecution Insights