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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2-9 are objected to because of the following informalities: “A gripper apparatus” on line 1 should be –The gripper apparatus--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “sidewalls of carrier” on line 8 should be –sidewalls of the carrier--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: “sidewalls of carrier” on line 8 should be –sidewalls of the carrier--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: “through port” on line 10 should be –through a port--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 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 claim 1, Applicant discloses: “a carrier and a storage container” on lines 1-2 and “a carrier” on line 8; “a carrier” again on line 8; “a carrier” on line 9; “a carrier” again on line 9; and “a storage container” on line 9. Are these different components? If not, then Applicant should use “the carrier” and “the storage container” on lines 8-9 to disclose these limitations.
Claims 2-10 depend from claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Applicant discloses: “a carrier in-line” on line 5 and “a carrier” on line 6; and “a carrier” again on line 7. Are these different components? If not, then Applicant should use “the carrier” on lines 6-7 to disclose these limitations.
Regarding claim 3, Applicant discloses: “a carrier” on lines 3-4. Is this a different component than the carrier disclosed in claim 1? If not, then Applicant should use “the carrier” on lines 3-4 to disclose this limitation.
Regarding claim 5, Applicant discloses: “a carrier” on line 4. Is this a different component than the carrier disclosed in claim 1? If not, then Applicant should use “the carrier” on line 4 to disclose this limitation.
Regarding claim 10, Applicant discloses: “a carrier” on line 5. Is this a different component than the carrier disclosed in claim 1? If not, then Applicant should use “the carrier” on line 5 to disclose this limitation.
Regarding claim 11, Applicant discloses: “a carrier and a storage container” on line 3 and “a carrier” on line 8; “a carrier” on line 9; “a carrier” again on line 9; and “a storage container” on line 9. Are these different components? If not, then Applicant should use “the carrier” and “the storage container” on lines 8-9 to disclose these limitations.
Regarding claim 11, Applicant discloses: “a port” on line 12 and “a port” on line 14. Are these different components? If not, then Applicant should use “the port” on line 14 to disclose this limitation. If so, then Applicant should provide distinguishing language such as: --a second port-- on line 14.
Claim 12 depends from claim 11.
Regarding claim 13, Applicant discloses: “a carrier and a storage container” on lines 2-3 and “a carrier” on line 8; “a carrier” on line 9; “a carrier” again on line 9; and “a storage container” on line 9. Are these different components? If not, then Applicant should use “the carrier” and “the storage container” on lines 8-9 to disclose these limitations.
Regarding claim 13, Applicant discloses: “port” on line 10 and “a port” on line 13. Are these different components? If not, then Applicant should use “the port” on line 13 to disclose this limitation. If so, then Applicant should provide distinguishing language such as: --a second port-- on line 13.
Claim 14 depends from claim 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-7 (AS BEST UNDERSTOOD) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bucklew (USP 4,340,249).
Regarding claim 1 (AS BEST UNDERSTOOD), Bucklew discloses a gripper apparatus for combining and separating a carrier (21) and a storage container, the carrier (21) having an open top (see Figure 2) and being able to be contained within the storage container (see column 4 lines 65-68 to column 5 lines 1-2), the gripper apparatus comprising:
first and second gripper arms (11); and
a lifting device (5,6);
wherein the gripper arms (11) are configured and arranged to exert a clamping pressure on an interior of opposing sidewalls of a carrier (21) to thereby grip a carrier to enable the lifting device to lift a carrier and combine/separate a carrier relative to a storage container (see Figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 3 (AS BEST UNDERSTOOD), Bucklew discloses a gripper apparatus according to claim 1, comprising:
an alignment mechanism (13) for aligning the gripper arms with opposing sidewalls of a carrier.
Regarding claim 4 (AS BEST UNDERSTOOD), Bucklew discloses a gripper apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a distal end of each of the gripper arms comprises:
a clamping arrangement having two pivotally joined (13) fingers (11) biased to provide a clamping force, and arranged to be pushed apart to release (see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 5 (AS BEST UNDERSTOOD), Bucklew discloses a gripper apparatus according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the first and second gripper arms (11) is mounted as a slidable member for adjusting a distance between the first and second gripper arms to substantially match a distance between opposing sidewalls of a carrier (see Figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 6 (AS BEST UNDERSTOOD), Bucklew discloses a gripper apparatus according to claim 1, comprising:
a connector (5 or 6) for mounting the gripper apparatus to a robotic arm (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 7 (AS BEST UNDERSTOOD), Bucklew discloses a gripper apparatus according to claim 1, wherein an engagement surface of each of the gripper arms comprises:
a friction surface (see Figures 1-3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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(s) 8 (AS BEST UNDERSTOOD) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bucklew (USP 4,340,249) as applied to claims 1 and 3-7 above, and further in view of Kobayashi (USP 5,280,982).
Regarding claim 8 (AS BEST UNDERSTOOD), Bucklew discloses the apparatus according to claim 1. However, Bucklew does not disclose an apparatus comprising: a second set of first and second gripper arms. Kobayashi discloses an apparatus comprising: a second set of first and second gripper arms (see Figure 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus disclosed by Bucklew by including an apparatus comprising: a second set of first and second gripper arms, as disclosed by Kobayashi, with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing two lifting brackets (see column 4 lines 49-54).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 9, and 10 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 11-14 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: dependent claim 2 discloses, “first and second plates corresponding to the first and second gripper arms respectively, wherein the plates are configured and arranged to be positioned on an exterior of opposing sidewalls of a carrier in-line with respective gripper arms and separated by a gap to accommodate opposing side walls of a carrier such that when a clamping pressure is applied to interior opposing side walls of a carrier, a bending of opposing side walls of that carrier will be limited by the plates” which, in combination with the rest of the claim language of claims 1-2, teaches an apparatus that is novel over the prior art of record. Dependent claim 9 discloses, “one or more load handling devices operative on the grid structure for transporting a combined carrier and storage container to the at least one port and/or for picking up a combined carrier and storage container from the at least one port, each of the one or more load handling devices including a lifting device for lifting and/or lowering a combined carrier and storage container or storage container” which, in combination with the rest of the claim language of claims 1 and 9, teaches an apparatus that is novel over the prior art of record. Independent claim 11 discloses, “receiving one or more carriers of items to be stored in the storage and retrieval system; transporting a storage container though a port to the gripper apparatus; combining the carrier with the storage container; and transporting the combined carrier and storage container through a port towards the grid structure” which, in combination with the rest of the claim language, teaches a method that is novel over the prior art of record. Independent claim 13 discloses, “transporting a combined carrier and storage container through port to the gripper apparatus; separating the carrier and storage container; and transporting the storage container through a port towards the grid structure” which, in combination with the rest of the claim language, teaches a method that is novel over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL COLLINS whose telephone number is (571)272-8970. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached at (571) 270-3415. 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.
M.K.C.
6/8/2026
/MICHAEL COLLINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights