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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “wherein the goods are placed on a removable tray at the storage space, and the shuttle is configured to lift the tray together with the goods.” Recited in claim 28 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 25 recites “a further vertical frame having a gripping arm coupled to the further frame, and a lifting device arranged at the further frame, wherein the further vertical frame is arranged in parallel to and at a distance to the vertical frame, the distance spanning the goods to be lifted, and wherein the gripping arm is coupled to a portion of the further vertical frame arranged below at least another one of the rollers.”
It should read as, “a further vertical frame having the further gripping arm coupled to the further frame, and the further lifting device arranged at the further frame, wherein the further vertical frame is arranged in parallel to and at a distance to the vertical frame, the distance spanning the goods to be lifted, and wherein the further gripping arm is coupled to a portion of the further vertical frame arranged below at least another one of the rollers.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 16-22, 24-26 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190026687 A1 (Voloskov) in view of US 20220212868 A1 (Liu et al.).
Regarding claim 16, Volsoskov teaches a shuttle (Fig. 1, 108) for retrieving goods in a warehouse system (Fig.1, 100) comprising an at least two-dimensional arrangement of storage spaces including at least one lane and at least one row (it can be seen in fig. 1 and 3), the shuttle (108) being configured to be movable along at least one of the lanes at a top of the at least one lane (it can be seen in fig. 1), the shuttle (108) comprising:
rollers (Fig.5, 134) engageable in rails (120) extending at the top of the at least one lane (it can be seen in fig.3);
a gripping arm (Fig.5, 136 and 140) coupled to a portion of the frame arranged below (it can be seen in fig. 5) at least one of the rollers (134), wherein the gripping arm (136 and 140) is configured to lift the goods (Fig. 3, 106) from one of the storage spaces (100) when the shuttle is positioned above the goods (it can be seen in Fig. 3); and
a lifting device (Fig. 5 146) arranged at the frame for lifting the gripping arm (136 and 140) and the goods (106) when the gripping arm (136 and 140) grips the goods (it can be seen in fig. 3 and 5),
wherein the gripping arm (136 and 140) comprises a rod extending (136) downwards from the frame, and wherein (i) the lifting device (146) is arranged adjacent to the rod (it can be seen in fig. 5, as per BRI, location of 146 is interpreted as adjacent to rod 136) and is configured to move the rod in a vertical direction along the longitudinal axis of the rod (it can be seen in fig. 5), or (ii) the lifting device is arranged on the longitudinal axis of the rod (it can be seen in fig. 5, as per BRI, location of 146 is interpreted as it is on the longitudinal axis to rod 136).
Voloskov explicitly fails to teach a vertical frame.
Liu et at. teaches a vertical frame (100, see attached annotated fig. 4).
(examiner’s note: Voloskov teaches all the emblements and its arrangement as it claimed except for a vertical frame, Liu et al. teaches a vertical frame, a lifting device (Fig. 5 146) arranged at the frame and the gripping arm (136 and 140) comprises a rod extending (136) downwards from the frame can be achieve with the frame of Liu et al. So, attaching parts to the frame is not an innovative concept.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified Voloskov by incorporating a vertical frame in view of Liu et al. in order to increase a structural stability of the shuttle.
PNG
media_image1.png
630
663
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Voloskov in view of Lue et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 16. Voloskov also teaches wherein the rod (136) comprises a jaw (fig. 5, 140) at a lower end thereof, and wherein the rod is rotatable about a longitudinal axis of the rod so as to turn the jaw to grip the goods (It can be seen in fig. 5, ¶0026).
Regarding claim 18, Voloskov in view of Lue et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 16. Voloskov also teaches further comprising: or wherein the rod (136) is part of the lifting device (it can be seen in fig. 5).
Voloskov explicitly fails to teach a force deflector translating a force or movement induced by the lifting device into a movement of the rod along the longitudinal axis of the rod.
Liu et al. teaches a force deflector (Fig. 4, 640) translating a force or movement induced by the lifting device (600) into a movement of the rod (510, 500) along the longitudinal axis of the rod (510, 500, see ¶0047).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified Voloskov by incorporating a force deflector translating a force or movement induced by the lifting device into a movement of the rod along the longitudinal axis of the rod. in view of Liu et al. in order to achieve smooth lifting of the goods (¶0046).
Regarding claim 19, Voloskov in view of Lue et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 16. Voloskov also teaches further comprising: an actuator (Fig.5, 142) configured to rotate the rod (136, ¶0053), wherein the actuator (142) is arranged adjacent to the rod (it can be seen in fig. 5, as per BRI, location of 142 is interpreted as adjacent to rod 136) and is coupled to the rod via a geared or toothed connection (144, ¶0053).
Regarding claim 20, Voloskov in view of Lui et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 16. Voloskov also teaches further comprising: a further gripping arm (it can be seen in fig.5, 136 and 140 on right hand side) coupled to the portion of the frame and configured to lift the goods (106) from one of the storage spaces when the shuttle is positioned above the goods (it can be seen in fig.3 and 5).
Voloskov explicitly fails to teach the frame.
See rejection of claim 16 for combining and motivation purpose.
Regarding claim 21, Voloskov in view of Lui et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 20. (Note: Voloskov teaches only one lifting unit 146 is lifting both gripping arms.) It explicitly fails to teach further comprising: a further lifting device arranged at the frame for lifting the further gripping arm and the goods when the further gripping arm grips the goods.
Lui et al. teaches further comprising: a further lifting device (see above attached annotated fig.4) arranged at the frame for lifting the further gripping arm and the goods (520) when the further gripping arm grips the goods. (it can be seen in fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified Voloskov by incorporating a further lifting device arranged at the frame for lifting the further gripping arm and the goods when the further gripping arm grips the goods in view of Liu et al. in order to achieve greater lifting capacity of the goods.
Regarding claim 22, Voloskov in view of Lui et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 20. Voloskov also teaches further comprising: a gripping arm beam (138) connecting the gripping arm with the further gripping arm (it can be seen in fig. 5), wherein the lifting device (146) is coupled to the gripping arm beam (138) and is configured to lift the goods via the gripping arm and the further gripping arm (it can be seen in fig. 3 and 5).
Regarding claim 24, Voloskov in view of Liu et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 16. Voloskov teaches at least on of the bearing (fig.5, 150, ¶0054) for gripping arm. Voloskov fails to teaches (only the frame and arrangement of component) further comprising: wherein the frame comprises at least one horizontal frame member comprising at least one bearing for the gripping arm, wherein the lifting device is arranged at the at least one horizontal frame member.
Liu et al. teaches wherein the frame (Fig. 4, 100) comprises at least one horizontal frame member (see attached annotated fig. 4) comprising at least one bearing for the gripping arm, wherein the lifting device is arranged at the at least one horizontal frame member (see attached annotated fig.4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified Voloskov by incorporating the frame comprises at least one horizontal frame member comprising at least one bearing for the gripping arm, wherein the lifting device is arranged at the at least one horizontal frame member in view of Liu et al. in order to increase a structural stability of the shuttle.
Regarding claim 25, Voloskov in view of Liu et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 16. (Note: Voloskov also teaches all the required structure, elements and arrangement of all the elements as is claimed except for the frame). Voloskov fails to teach further comprising: a further vertical frame having a gripping arm coupled to the further frame, and a lifting device arranged at the further frame, wherein the further vertical frame is arranged in parallel to and at a distance to the vertical frame, the distance spanning the goods to be lifted, and wherein the gripping arm is coupled to a portion of the further vertical frame arranged below at least another one of the rollers.
Liu et al. teaches further comprising: a further vertical frame having a gripping arm coupled to the further frame, and a lifting device arranged at the further frame (it can be seen in above attached annotated fig. 4), wherein the further vertical frame is arranged in parallel to and at a distance to the vertical frame (it can be seen in above attached annotated fig. 4), the distance spanning the goods to be lifted, and wherein the gripping arm is coupled to a portion of the further vertical frame arranged below at least another one of the rollers (it can be seen in above attached annotated fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified Voloskov by incorporating a further vertical frame having a gripping arm coupled to the further frame, and a lifting device arranged at the further frame, wherein the further vertical frame is arranged in parallel to and at a distance to the vertical frame, the distance spanning the goods to be lifted, and wherein the gripping arm is coupled to a portion of the further vertical frame arranged below at least another one of the rollers in view of Liu et al. in order to increase a structural stability of the shuttle.
Regarding claim 26, Voloskov in view of Liu et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 25. Voloskov explicitly fails to teach further comprising: one or more beams connecting an upper member of the vertical frame with an upper member of the further vertical frame.
Liu et al. teaches further comprising: one or more beams (see above attached annotated fig. 4) connecting an upper member of the vertical frame with an upper member of the further vertical frame (it can be seen in above attached annotated fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified Voloskov by incorporating one or more beams connecting an upper member of the vertical frame with an upper member of the further vertical frame in view of Liu et al. in order to increase a structural stability of the shuttle.
Regarding claim 28, Voloskov teaches a warehouse system (100), comprising: an at least two-dimensional arrangement of storage spaces including at least one lane and at least one row (it can be seen in fig. 1 and 2), wherein each storage space is configured to receive goods (106), wherein the goods are placed on a removable tray (Fig. 4, 128, ¶0048) at the storage space, and the shuttle is configured to lift the tray together with the goods.
Voloskov fails to teaches a shuttle according to claim 16.
Combination of Voloskov and Liu et al. teaches a shuttle according to claim 16. (for citation, combination and motivation purpose, see rejection of claim 16).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190026687 A1 (Voloskov) in view of US 20220212868 A1 (Liu et al.) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of US 4657463 A (Pipes).
Regarding claim 27, Voloskov in view of Liu et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 17. Combination of Voloskov and Liu et al. fails to teach further comprising: an electrical enclosure arranged at the portion of the vertical frame, wherein the electrical enclosure is configured to hold a controller of the shuttle.
Pipes an electrical enclosure (Fig. 2, 42) arranged at the portion of the vertical frame (it can be seen in fig.2), wherein the electrical enclosure (42) is configured to hold a controller of the shuttle (column 2, lines 53-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified combination of Voloskov and Liu et al. by incorporating an electrical enclosure arranged at the portion of the vertical frame, wherein the electrical enclosure is configured to hold a controller of the shuttle in view of Pipes in order to hold the required controller to operate the shuttle (column 2, lines 58-60).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23 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. Other cited prior art shows another warehouse shuttles. Specially, US 20210139239 A1 (Austrheim) and US 20230125328 A1 (Lindbo) teaches a shuttle comprise a vertical frame all the other components are arranged on frame, also teaches force deflector as claimed in claim 18.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAIMIN G PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM to 5:00 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 517-272-7097. 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.
/SAUL RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3652
/JAIMIN G PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights