The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Although no particular errors were noted during examination, the lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim 34 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 1, “temporary” should be --temporarily--. Appropriate correction is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The recitation “the lifting frame is raisable at the level above the uppermost part of the storage container carried by the container carrier of the first type of container handling vehicle and is configured to transfer the storage container between the container carrier and the port column” in the claim merely repeats the last four lines of claim 18 from which this claim ultimately depends. It is believed applicant may have intended to refer to --a second lifting frame of the second crane trolley assembly-- (or similar language) instead of “the lifting frame”.
Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place it in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
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 31-34 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 31, penultimate line, the recitation “the first lifting frame” lacks clear and proper antecedent basis.
Claim 32, the recitation “the lowering the first lifting device with the storage container is accomplished through the port column to the lower end of the port column” is not understood and seems to contradict what is required by the limitation “lowering the first lifting device with the storage container to lower the storage container onto the container carrier of the first type of container handling vehicle” in claim 31. That is, since the first type of container handling vehicle operates on a rail system on the top of a frame structure of the storage and retrieval system (as per claim 18), then it is not clear how lowering the container onto such a vehicle (as in claim 31) could be accomplished through the port column to the lower end thereof (as in claim 32), as doing so would not result in lowering the container onto the vehicle at the top of the frame structure. It is believed applicant may have intended to recite an additional/different step of lowering, rather than “the lowering” recited in claim 31.
Claims 33-34 are included only due to their dependency from claim 31.
Claims 18-29 are allowed.
Claims 31-34 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.
Similarly, claim 30 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 4th paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Austrheim et al (WO 2021/239509), the closest prior art with respect to the subject matter of claim 18, discloses:
An automated storage and retrieval system (see Fig. 15) comprising a two-dimensional rail system (108) comprising a first set of parallel rails in a horizontal plane arranged to guide movement of container handling vehicles in a first direction across a top of a frame structure (100), and a second set of parallel rails in the horizontal plane arranged perpendicular to the first set of parallel rails to guide the movement of the container handling vehicles in a second direction which is perpendicular to the first direction, the frame structure defining a plurality of storage columns (105) for accommodating vertical stacks of storage containers (106), wherein the automated storage and retrieval system comprises:
a first type of container handling vehicle (401) operating on the rail system, the first type of container handling vehicle comprises a first set of wheels for movement on the rail system in the first direction and a second set of wheels for movement on the rail system in the second direction (1st and 2nd set of wheels shown in Figs. 15-20), and a container carrier (29) for supporting the storage container, the container carrier being configured to receive the storage container from above; and
a crane (9') comprising a first lifting device (6) comprising a first lifting frame (3) suspended from lifting bands (5), wherein the first lifting frame is raisable at a level above an uppermost part of the storage container carried by the container carrier of the first type of container handling vehicle and is configured to transfer the storage container stored in a stack of storage containers to the container carrier of the first type of container handling vehicle (Figs. 15-20).
Austrheim differs from the subject matter of claim 18 in that it does not show:
a port column through which a storage container may be transferred between an upper end and a lower end of the port column, or a gantry arrangement arranged at a port area of the rail system, at which the upper end of the port column is arranged, wherein the gantry arrangement comprises a first cross-member, a crane trolley assembly comprising a first crane trolley suspended from the first cross-member and a first crane trolley lifting frame suspended by first crane trolley lifting bands from the first crane trolley, wherein the first crane trolley lifting frame is raisable at the level above the uppermost part of the storage container carried by the container carrier of the first type of container handling vehicle and is configured to transfer the storage container between the container carrier and the port column.
The technical effect of this difference is the unloading of the target storage container for further processing. Hence, the problem to be solved can be seen as how to efficiently unload the storage container from the first container handling vehicle for further processing.
Austrheim et al (WO 2019/086237) shows in Figs. 9-11 a port column 28, 29, and a gantry arrangement including first cross member 89 and trolley assembly 45 running on rails for picking up containers delivered from container handling vehicles (trolley 45 picks up containers from 72'). However, the trolley is not suspended from the first cross member but rather runs thereon. Furthermore, while not explicitly disclosed, the container grippers of trolley 45 do not seem to be lowered using lifting bands. Thus, even if these references were combined, for which there is no suggestion or motivation, the resulting combination would not result in the subject matter of claim 18.
Since method claim 31 refers to the storage and retrieval system of claim 18, the above argument likewise applies thereto.
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 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
10/14/26
Prosecution Insights