DETAILED ACTION
This action is a non-final, first office action on the merits in response to applicant’s communication filed on 12/17/2024 (the PCT filed on 6/23/2023), wherein claims 1-28 are canceled, and claims 29-56 are currently pending.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) based upon an application filed in Norway. The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. NO20220739, filed on June 29, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/17/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informality: claim 29 introduces “a drive belt” three separate times — in the tensioning pulley limitation (“a tensioning pulley for tightening and loosening a drive belt”), in the motor limitation (“a motor for driving a drive belt for rotating the first lifting shaft and the second lifting shaft”), and in the limitation “a drive belt defining one closed loop.” Read as a whole and in light of the specification, which states that “it is only one drive belt connecting all of the pulleys” and that “one single common drive belt 20 is used for rotating both the first and the second lifting shaft,” the drive belt defining the one closed loop — which the claim expressly recites as rotatably connecting the tensioning pulley and the drive belt pulley — is reasonably understood to be the same belt referenced in the earlier limitations, so the repeated introduction is treated as an informality rather than a source of indefiniteness. Appropriate correction is required: amend the second and third recitations to “the drive belt,” or introduce the drive belt once before its first functional recitation.
Claims 30-56 are likewise objected to because each incorporates the objected-to language of claim 29, either through dependency or by express reference.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 40 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 40 depends from claim 34 (which depends from claim 32, in turn from claim 29) and recites “the other guide pulley of the at least one guide pulley arranged within the closed loop” and “the guide pulley which is closest to the first lifting shaft pulley.” Nothing in the claim 29/32/34 dependency chain establishes any guide pulley arranged within the closed loop, nor a first guide pulley relative to which “the other” guide pulley may be identified; claim 29 recites only “at least one guide pulley.” One of ordinary skill in the art therefore cannot determine whether claim 40 requires one or two guide pulleys, or which guide pulley is “the other” guide pulley.
Claim 41 likewise depends only from claim 34 and recites “the center axis of the other guide pulley of the at least one guide pulley.” The term “the other guide pulley” lacks antecedent basis for the reasons set forth for claim 40. (“The center axis” presents no independent defect, a pulley inherently having a center axis, and “the midpoint” is properly introduced within the same limitation.)
It appears the dependency of claim 41 was intended to reach claim 40.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention;
(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.
Claims 29, 30, 33, 35, 42, 44-46, 51, 52 and 54-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Djuve (WO 2021/209337 A1) (Cited on IDS provided 12/17/2024), hereinafter “Djuve.” Djuve is relied upon for the container handling vehicle 401 of Figs. 4A-4C together with the force-transferring setup of Fig. 4H, which Djuve expressly presents as a setup of the same lifting device 414: “Figs. 4D-4I are examples of different setups providing opposite rotation of the lifting shafts 417′,417″” (Djuve, page 17, lines 16-17), using the same reference numerals as the Fig. 4B lifting device.
For clarity of the record, the following correspondence between the recited claim elements and the elements of Djuve applies throughout the rejections set forth below: the container handling vehicle is the vehicle 401; the lifting assembly is the lifting device 414; the lifting frame is the lifting frame 415; the first and second lifting shafts are the lifting shafts 417′, 417″; the lifting bands are the lifting bands 419; the first and second lifting shaft pulleys are the lifting shaft wheels 423′, 423″; the at least one guide pulley comprises the sheaves 422′, 422″; the tensioning pulley is the tightening wheel 424; the drive belt is the endless force transferring element 418; the drive belt pulley is the belt-engaging wheel of the lifting device motor 416′; and the motor is the lifting device motor 416′.
Regarding Claim 29, Djuve discloses:
a container handling vehicle (401) for moving storage containers (106) stacked in stacks (107) within an automated storage and retrieval system (1), wherein the container handling vehicle is configured to move on a rail system (108) above storage columns (105) (Djuve, page 1, lines 19-35) and comprises a first set of wheels (32a) for movement on the rail system in a first direction (X) and a second set of wheels (32b) for movement on the rail system in a second direction (Y) which is perpendicular to the first direction (Djuve, page 14, lines 14-19; wheel base unit 2);
wherein the container handling vehicle comprises a lifting assembly (lifting device 414) which comprises:
a lifting frame (415) connectable to a storage container (106) (Djuve, page 16, lines 5-9: gripping devices 420 extend from a lower surface of the lifting frame “for connecting the lifting frame to complementary lifting holes of the storage containers 106 thereby rendering possible lifting and lowering of the storage containers”);
a first lifting shaft (417′) and a second lifting shaft (417″) supported in an upper portion of the vehicle (the shafts are “arranged in parallel in the cantilever section 413,” Djuve, page 16, lines 30-32, the cantilever section being the uppermost part of the body unit 410, Figs. 4A-4B);
two lifting bands (419) extending from each of the first and second lifting shafts to the lifting frame (“The lifting bands 419 connected to the lifting frame 415, are spooled onto and off the lifting shafts 417′,417″,” Djuve, page 16, lines 32-34; Figs. 4B-4C showing two bands 419 at the two ends of each lifting shaft, four suspension points in total);
a first lifting shaft pulley (lifting shaft wheel 423′) for rotation with the first lifting shaft;
a second lifting shaft pulley (lifting shaft wheel 423″) for rotation with the second lifting shaft (“a first and second lifting shaft wheel 423′, 423″ whereof each is connected for rotation with the respective lifting shafts 417′,417″,” Djuve, page 17, lines 19-21);
at least one guide pulley (sheaves 422′, 422″) (Djuve, page 17, line 21; page 18, lines 4-9);
a tensioning pulley (tightening wheel 424) for tightening and loosening a drive belt (Djuve, page 18, lines 10-17: the tightening wheel 424 is located where the belt path “can be shortened or prolonged in order to further tension or reduce tension in the force transferring element”);
a motor (lifting device motor 416′) for driving a drive belt (endless belt/force transferring element 418) for rotating the first lifting shaft and the second lifting shaft (“The lifting device motor 416′ and the two lifting shafts 417 are connected to each other via the lifting shaft wheels 423′, 423″ and an endless flexible force transferring element 418, such as e.g. belt,” Djuve, page 16, lines 37-40; “a rotatable lifting device motor 416′,” Djuve, page 17, lines 18-19);
a drive belt pulley for outputting drive from the motor (the belt-engaging wheel of the motor 416′ around which the belt 418 runs, Djuve, Figs. 4D-4I). As would be understood by those having ordinary skill in the art, an endless belt cannot receive rotary power from a stationary motor housing; torque is necessarily transferred from a motor to a belt through a rotating belt-engaging output wheel — a pulley — and the wheel depicted at 416′ engaged by the belt 418 in each of Figs. 4D-4I is such a pulley. This is consistent with Djuve’s disclosure that the coupling between the lifting device motor and the lifting shafts “may comprise any necessary components to transfer rotational movement from the lifting device motor and the lifting shafts” (Djuve, page 7, lines 4-7);
a drive belt (418) defining one closed loop, wherein the drive belt rotatably connects the first lifting shaft pulley (423′), the second lifting shaft pulley (423″), the at least one guide pulley (422′, 422″), the tensioning pulley (424) and the drive belt pulley (of the motor 416′) (“a force transferring element 418 in the form of an endless belt forming a closed loop,” Djuve, page 17, lines 20-22; Fig. 4H showing all of the foregoing engaged by a single closed-loop belt);
the first lifting shaft pulley (423′) is in contact with an outer surface of the drive belt; and the second lifting shaft pulley (423″) is in contact with an inner surface of the drive belt. Djuve expressly recites the alternative that “the first or second lifting shaft wheel 423′, 423″ is in contact with an inner surface of the endless belt 418 and the other of the first or second lifting shaft wheel 423′, 423″ is in contact with the outer surface of the endless belt 418” (Djuve, page 17, lines 22-25), achieved by arranging one wheel inside and the other wheel outside the closed loop (Djuve, page 17, lines 25-28). Election of the expressly named species in which the first lifting shaft wheel 423′ contacts the outer surface and the second lifting shaft wheel 423″ contacts the inner surface is proper for anticipation; the designations “first” and “second” are in any event nominal;
wherein the motor is arranged at a lower elevation than the first and second lifting shafts (“As shown in Fig. 4B, the lifting device motor 416′ is arranged in the lower section 411,” Djuve, page 16, lines 36-37, while the lifting shafts are “arranged in parallel in the cantilever section 413,” Djuve, page 16, lines 30-32, at the top of the body unit, Figs. 4A-4C; see also Figs. 4D-4I, each depicting the motor 416′ below the lifting shaft wheels 423′, 423″; the relative terms “upper”, “lower”, “below”, “above”, “higher” “shall be understood in their normal sense and as seen in a cartesian coordinate system,” Djuve, page 11, lines 6-7).
Regarding Claim 30, Djuve discloses:
The container handling vehicle of claim 29, as set forth above, and further discloses:
wherein the first lifting shaft and the second lifting shaft rotate in opposite directions (“the first and second lifting shafts 417′, 417″ (via first and second lifting shaft wheels 423′, 423″, respectively) rotate in opposite directions (counter rotates),” Djuve, page 17, lines 31-33).
Regarding Claim 33, Djuve discloses:
The container handling vehicle of claim 29, as set forth above, and further discloses:
wherein the drive belt pulley is in contact with the inner surface of the drive belt (Fig. 4H: the belt-engaging wheel of the motor 416′ forms a vertex within the closed loop of the belt 418, the belt wrapping the wheel from inside the loop; the same configuration is shown in each of Figs. 4D-4I).
Regarding Claim 35, Djuve discloses:
The container handling vehicle of claim 29, as set forth above, and further discloses:
wherein at least one of the at least one guide pulley is arranged inside the closed loop (“at least one of sheaves 422′,422″ is arranged inside the closed loop,” Djuve, page 17, lines 21-22).
Regarding Claim 42 Djuve discloses:
The container handling vehicle of claim 29, as set forth above, and further discloses:
wherein the tensioning pulley is mounted on an eccentric (“The tightening wheel 424 may for example be an eccentric tensioning mechanism comprising a rotatable sheave with an axle that can be adjusted within an opening in a fixed bracket,” Djuve, page 18, lines 11-13). Djuve expressly characterizes the tightening wheel 424 as an “eccentric tensioning mechanism,” rather than merely as a translatable idler, and discloses adjustment of the sheave axle to change the belt-path length and thereby increase or reduce belt tension. Accordingly, Djuve expressly discloses the claimed eccentric mounting under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation.
Regarding Claim 44, Djuve discloses:
The container handling vehicle of claim 29, as set forth above, and further discloses:
wherein the first lifting shaft and the second lifting shaft are parallel (“The two lifting shafts 417′,417″ are arranged in parallel,” Djuve, page 16, lines 30-31).
Regarding Claim 45, Djuve discloses:
The container handling vehicle of claim 29, as set forth above, and further discloses:
wherein the lifting frame is connectable to a storage container from above (the gripping devices 420 extend from a lower surface of the lifting frame and connect to complementary lifting holes of the storage containers, Djuve, page 16, lines 5-9; Figs. 4A and 6 showing the lifting frame above the storage container).
Regarding Claim 46, Djuve discloses:
The container handling vehicle of claim 29, as set forth above, and further discloses:
wherein the lifting assembly is configured to lift a storage container to a position above a lowest level of the first and second sets of wheels (Djuve, Figs. 4A and 6: a storage container 106 held by the lifting frame 415 docked adjacent the cantilever section 413 is carried at height h2 entirely above the rail system 108 on which the wheels 32a, 32b run, permitting transport of the container across the rail system).
Regarding Claim 51, Djuve discloses:
The container handling vehicle of claim 29, as set forth above, and further discloses:
wherein the container handling vehicle comprises a vehicle module part (the wheel base unit 2 together with the portion of the body unit 410 lying within the vertical footprint of the lower section 411 — comprising the lower section 411, the support section 412, and the portion of the body unit above them that houses the belt drive of the lifting device 414) and a cantilever part (the portion of the body unit 410 projecting horizontally beyond the footprint of the lower section 411, from which the lifting bands 419 and the lifting frame 415 depend), wherein the cantilever part extends sideways from the vehicle module part ("a cantilever section 413 extending horizontally from the support section 412 beyond the footprint of the lower section 411," Djuve, page 15, lines 38-41), and wherein the first set of wheels (32a), the second set of wheels (32b) and the motor (416') are arranged in the vehicle module part (wheels in the wheel base unit 2, Djuve, page 14, lines 14-19; "the lifting device motor 416' is arranged in the lower section 411," Djuve, page 16, lines 36-37).
Regarding Claim 52, Djuve discloses:
The container handling vehicle of claim 51, as set forth above.
Djuve further discloses the vehicle module part and cantilever part:
wherein the drive belt, the first lifting shaft pulley, the second lifting shaft pulley, and the at least one guide pulley are arranged in the vehicle module part (the endless force transferring element 418, the lifting shaft wheels 423', 423" and the sheaves 422', 422" are arranged within the vertical footprint of the lower section 411, above the support section 412, as depicted in Figs. 4B, 4C and 5; the lifting bands 419 are led from the lifting shafts outward to the lifting frame 415 at the cantilever part, Djuve, page 16, lines 32-35).
As set forth in the claim interpretation above, claims 51 and 52 recite the "vehicle module part" and the "cantilever part" without reciting any wall, boundary, or other structure delimiting one from the other, requiring only that the cantilever part extend sideways from the vehicle module part. The prior art need not use the same terminology as the claims, and the particular labels Djuve applies to regions of its body unit 410 do not control the scope of the claimed sections. See MPEP § 2111. Djuve's own Fig. 5 is presented as indicating which parts may form part of the cantilever section, confirming that the reference does not treat that boundary as fixed.
Regarding Claim 54, Djuve discloses:
an automated storage and retrieval system (1) (Figs. 1A-1C) comprising:
a rail system (108) comprising a first set of parallel tracks (110; 110a, 110b) arranged in a horizontal plane and extending in a first direction (X), and a second set of parallel tracks (111; 111a, 111b) arranged in the horizontal plane and extending in a second direction (Y) which is orthogonal to the first direction, which first and second sets of tracks form a grid pattern in the horizontal plane comprising a plurality of adjacent grid cells (122), each comprising an access opening (grid opening 115) defined by a pair of neighboring tracks of the first set of tracks and a pair of neighboring tracks of the second set of tracks (“each grid cell 122 comprises a grid opening 115 being delimited by a pair of tracks 110a,110b of the first set of rails 110 and a pair of tracks 111a,111b of the second set of rails 111,” Djuve, page 13, lines 33-38); and
a plurality of stacks (107) of storage containers (106) arranged in storage columns (105) located beneath the rail system, wherein each storage column is located vertically below an access opening (containers “are accessed by the container handling vehicles through access openings/grid openings 112 in the grid cells 122 in the rail system 108,” Djuve, page 1, lines 34-36; storage columns 105 with stacks 107, page 1, lines 19-22); and wherein the automated storage and retrieval system comprises at least one container handling vehicle (401) as set forth for claim 29 above.
Regarding Claim 55, Djuve discloses:
a method of lifting a storage container using the container handling vehicle of claim 29 (as set forth above) wherein the method comprises:
positioning the container handling vehicle above a stack of storage containers in a storage column, wherein the stack comprises a target storage container (the vehicle is “instructed to retrieve the target storage container 106 from its position,” which “involves moving the container handling vehicle… to a location above the storage column 105 in which the target storage container 106 is positioned, retrieving the storage container 106 from the storage column 105 using the container handling vehicle’s … lifting device,” Djuve, page 4, line 35 - page 5, line 3); (storage containers 106 stacked in stacks 107 within storage columns 105, page 1, lines 19-22);
operating the motor in a first direction to rotate the drive belt and thus the first lifting shaft and the second lifting shaft thereby lowering the lifting frame into contact with an uppermost storage container of the stack (the lifting device retrieves the storage container from the storage column, Djuve, page 7, lines 1-3; the lifting device motor 416’ drives the belt 418 which rotates the lifting shafts 417’, 417’’ via the lifting shaft wheels 423’, 423’’, Djuve, page 16, lines 37-40, so that the lifting bands 419 “are spooled onto and off the lifting shafts 417’, 417’’, thereby moving the lifting frame 415 and any storage container 106 carried by the lifting frame 415 up and down,” Djuve, page 16, lines 32-35; lowering the lifting frame to the uppermost container being the spooling-off direction on that rotation),
stopping the motor when the lifting frame is in contact with the uppermost storage container (the lifting frame 415 carries gripping devices 420 that connect to complementary lifting holes of the storage container 106, Djuve, page 16, lines 5-9, which connection is necessarily made with the lifting frame lowered into contact with and stationary at the uppermost container; as would be understood by those having ordinary skill in the art, operating the motor to lower the frame and thereafter connecting the frame to the container necessarily entails stopping the motor at the point of contact);
connecting the lifting frame to the uppermost storage container (the lifting bands “are spooled onto and off the lifting shafts 417′,417″, thereby moving the lifting frame… and any storage container 106 carried by the lifting frame 415 up and down,” Djuve, page 16, lines 32-35; the gripping devices 420 connect to the complementary lifting holes of the container, Djuve, page 16, lines 6-9); and
operating the motor in a second direction, which second direction is opposite the first direction, to rotate the drive belt and thus the first lifting shaft and the second lifting shaft thereby lifting the lifting frame and the connected storage container above the rail system (the lifted container is carried above the rail system 108, Djuve, Figs. 4A and 6, heights h1/h2). As would be understood by those having ordinary skill in the art, in a positive belt drive in which the motor is the sole drive input, raising and lowering by spooling the bands onto and off the shafts is necessarily effected by operating the motor in opposite directions; operating the motor first in one direction (lowering) and thereafter in the opposite direction (lifting) necessarily includes stopping the motor between the two operations, the stop occurring with the lifting frame lowered into contact with the storage container to which it is then connected.
Regarding Claim 56, Djuve discloses:
The method of claim 55, as set forth above, and further discloses:
wherein the first lifting shaft and the second lifting shaft rotate in opposite directions (“the first and second lifting shafts 417′, 417″ … rotate in opposite directions (counter rotates),” Djuve, page 17, lines 31-33).
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.
Claims 31, 32, 34, 36-41, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Djuve (WO 2021/209337 A1) (Cited on IDS provided 12/17/2024).
Regarding Claim 31 and 32, Djuve discloses:
The container handling vehicle of claim 29, as set forth above.
Djuve further discloses the drive belt engaging the drive belt pulley of the motor, the first and second lifting shaft pulleys, the guide sheaves and the tightening wheel in a closed loop as set forth above, but does not expressly disclose numerical angles of contact, and angles are not measured from Djuve’s schematic figures (e.g., “wherein an angle of contact between the drive belt and the drive belt pulley is at least 60 degrees” (claim 31) or “wherein an angle of contact between the drive belt and the first lifting shaft pulley and the second lifting shaft pulley is at least 60 degrees” (claim 32)).
However, the angle of contact (wrap angle) between a belt and a pulley is recognized in the belt-drive art as a result-effective variable governing the engagement between belt and pulley and thus the torque that can be transmitted without slip, and Djuve’s sheaves are expressly provided “to lead the force transferring element 418 correctly onto the first and second lifting shaft wheel” (Djuve, page 17, line 37 - page 18, line 2), evidencing that adequate belt engagement at the pulleys is the object of the belt-path geometry. Furthermore, Figs. 4G-4I of Djuve, the setups depicting the tightening wheel 424 together with the complete belt path, show the drive belt 418 led around a substantial arc of the circumference of each of the drive belt pulley of the motor 416’, the first lifting shaft pulley 423’ and the second lifting shaft pulley 423’, rather than in tangential or point contact with those pulleys.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have configured the belt path of Djuve such that the angle of contact at the drive belt pulley and at each of the first and second lifting shaft pulleys is at least 60 degrees, in order to provide sufficient engagement to transmit the lifting torque without slip, it having been held that discovering an optimum or workable value of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955); MPEP § 2144.05(II).
Regarding Claim 34, Djuve discloses:
The container handling vehicle of claim 32, as set forth above.
Djuve further discloses wherein the tensioning pulley is arranged outside the closed loop (“The tightening wheel 424 can be arranged inside (Figs. 4G and 4I) or outside (Fig. 4H) the closed loop formed by the force transferring element 418,” Djuve, page 18, lines 17-19; Fig. 4H, the relied-upon setup, showing the tightening wheel outside the loop).
Regarding Claim 36, Djuve discloses:
The container handling vehicle of claim 34, as set forth above.
Djuve further discloses wherein the first lifting shaft pulley is arranged outside the closed loop and the guide pulley closest to the first lifting shaft pulley is arranged inside the closed loop (one lifting shaft wheel is arranged outside the closed loop, Djuve, page 17, lines 25-28, the elected species placing the first lifting shaft wheel 423′ outside; “at least one of sheaves 422′,422″ is arranged inside the closed loop,” Djuve, page 17, lines 21-22; Fig. 4H showing the sheaves adjacent the outside-loop shaft wheel 423′ within the loop).
Regarding Claim 37, Djuve discloses:
The container handling vehicle of claim 34, as set forth above.
Djuve further discloses two sheaves (422′, 422″) arranged about the outside-loop first lifting shaft pulley (Fig. 4H) and that the sheaves are arranged along the belt path at fixed positions to change the travel direction of the belt and “to lead the force transferring element 418 correctly onto the first and second lifting shaft wheel” (Djuve, page 17, line 37 - page 18, line 2).
However, Djuve does not expressly establish which sheave is closest to the first lifting shaft pulley, distances between pulleys not being measured from the schematic figures (e.g., “wherein an axis of the guide pulley which is closest to the first lifting shaft pulley is arranged at a higher elevation than an axis of the first lifting shaft pulley”). It is noted that both FIGS 4H and 4I strongly suggest which guide pulley is closest to the first lifting shaft pulley 423’, the sheave 422” in Fig. 4H and the sheave 422’ in Fig. 4I, and depict that sheave with its axis above the axis of the first lifting shaft pulley 423’.
Therefore, in view of the reason above and the suggested teaching in the figures, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have arranged the sheave nearest the outside-loop first lifting shaft pulley with its axis at a higher elevation than the axis of that pulley, because a pulley engaged by the belt from outside the loop requires the belt to be led over its upper side to obtain wrap, and a sheave leading the belt onto that upper side is predictably positioned above the pulley’s axis (Fig. 4H depicting sheave 422″ above the first lifting shaft wheel 423′ in this belt-leading position); the arrangement follows directly from the stated belt-guiding purpose of the sheaves. This is a matter of engineering design directed to leading the belt onto the pulley, involving only the selection of a predictable workable arrangement from Djuve’s belt-guiding purpose. See MPEP § 2144.04; KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007); MPEP § 2143(E).
Regarding Claim 38, Djuve discloses:
The container handling vehicle of claim 34, as set forth above.
Djuve further discloses wherein two guide pulleys of the at least one guide pulley are arranged inside the closed loop (Figs. 4E-4I each comprise two sheaves 422′, 422″ within the closed loop about the shaft wheel 423′).
Regarding Claims 40 and 41, Djuve discloses:
The container handling vehicle of claim 34, as set forth above.
The instant claims further recite, as construed in the 112(b) rejections above, wherein the other (second) guide pulley of the at least one guide pulley arranged within the closed loop is arranged at substantially the same distance from the first lifting shaft pulley as the guide pulley which is closest to the first lifting shaft pulley and has a center axis which is at a lower elevation than the center axis of the first lifting shaft pulley (claim 40), and wherein the center axis of the other (second) guide pulley of the at least one guide pulley is arranged in a vertical plane which is at a further distance from a midpoint between the first and second lifting shafts than a distance between the midpoint and the center axis of the first lifting shaft pulley (claim 41).
Djuve discloses two guide pulleys of the at least one guide pulley (sheaves 422′, 422″) arranged inside the closed loop about the first lifting shaft pulley 423′, which is arranged outside the closed loop (Fig. 4H), and discloses that the guide pulleys are arranged along the belt path at fixed positions to change the travel direction of the drive belt and to lead it correctly onto the first and second lifting shaft pulleys (Djuve, page 17, lines 35-38).
However, Djuve does not expressly recite the positional relationships of claims 40 and 41. Figs. 4H and 4I, however, depict the two guide pulleys arranged on either side of the first lifting shaft pulley 423′ at comparable radial distances from it, with the second of those guide pulleys positioned below and outboard of the first lifting shaft pulley relative to the midpoint between the first and second lifting shafts; that is, the arrangement recited in claims 40 and 41. The figures are relied upon as showing the belt-path arrangement Djuve teaches, not as establishing measured distances.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have positioned the second sheave at substantially the same radial distance from the outside-loop first lifting shaft pulley as the first sheave, on the lower, outboard side of that pulley — i.e., below the pulley’s center axis and outboard of it relative to the midpoint between the lifting shafts — thereby bracketing the outside-loop pulley between the two sheaves, in order to maximize the angle of contact of the belt about the pulley that is engaged from outside the loop and thereby secure slip-free torque transfer. Such placement performs the same belt-guiding function taught by Djuve in the same way and follows directly from the stated purpose of the sheaves. In the modified arrangement, the belt is led onto the upper side of the outside-loop first lifting shaft pulley by the upper (closest) sheave and off its lower, outboard side by the second sheave; leading the belt off the lower side necessarily places the center axis of the second sheave at a lower elevation than the center axis of the first lifting shaft pully, as recited in claim 40, and directing the belt outboard of the pully necessarily places the center axis of the second sheave in a vertical plane at a further distance from the midpoint between the lifting shafts than the center axis of the first lifting shaft pulley, as recited in claim 41. This is a matter of engineering design following directly from Djuve’s stated belt-guiding purpose. See MPEP § 2144.04; KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007); MPEP § 2143(E).
Regarding Claim 43, Djuve discloses:
The container handling vehicle of claim 29, as set forth above.
Djuve further discloses the first lifting shaft pulley and the second lifting shaft pulley (lifting shaft wheels 423′, 423″) as larger in diameter than the drive belt pulley (the belt-engaging wheel of the motor 416′), the at least one guide pulley (sheaves 422′, 422″) and the tensioning pulley (tightening wheel 424) (Figs. 4D-4I).
However, Djuve does not explicitly recite relative pulley diameters. Djuve does, however, appear to suggest the claimed relationship, in that each of Figs. 4D-4I depicts the first and second lifting shaft pulleys as the largest-diameter pulleys in the closed loop and the drive belt pulley, guide pulleys and tensioning pulley as smaller.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have made the lifting shaft pulleys larger in diameter than the drive belt pulley, because the ratio of driven-pulley diameter to drive-pulley diameter is the result-effective variable that sets the speed reduction and torque multiplication of a belt drive, and enlarging the driven shaft pulleys relative to the motor’s drive pulley provides torque multiplication and finer speed control at the lifting shafts for controlled lifting of loaded storage containers (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP § 2144.05(II)); and to have made the guide sheaves and the tightening wheel smaller in diameter than the lifting shaft pulleys, because the sheaves and tightening wheel transmit no torque and serve only to redirect and tension the belt, so that minimizing their diameters reduces their rotating mass and the space they occupy along the belt path while leaving the drive ratio unaffected — the predictable sizing of non-driving idlers in a belt drive. See MPEP § 2144.04.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Djuve (WO 2021/209337 A1) (Cited on IDS provided 12/17/2024) in view of Eavenson, Sr. (US 7,913,479 B2), hereinafter "Eavenson."
Regarding Claim 39, Djuve discloses:
The container handling vehicle of claim 38, as set forth above.
Djuve further discloses:
two guide pulleys of the at least one guide pulley (sheaves 422', 422") occupying angularly offset positions partially around the first lifting shaft pulley (lifting shaft wheel 423'), the guide pulleys being arranged alternating along the path of the drive belt such that the first lifting shaft pulley is followed by a guide pulley in both directions of belt travel, and being arranged along the belt path at fixed positions to change the travel direction of the drive belt and to lead it correctly onto the first and second lifting shaft pulleys (Djuve, page 17, lines 35-38; page 18, lines 4-9; Fig. 4H).
However, Djuve does not expressly recite wherein the lifting assembly comprises an L-shaped carrier that supports the two guide pulleys.
Reasonably pertinent to the particular problem of fixing the mutual positions of two idler pulleys that engage opposite faces of an endless belt on either side of an adjacent pulley, so as to establish and preserve the belt path onto that pulley, Eavenson teaches:
wherein the lifting assembly comprises an L-shaped carrier that supports the two guide pulleys (two guide pulleys are supported on a single angled carrier, a two-pulley belt tensioning mechanism 50 in which a back-side idler pulley 52 engaging the back-side portion 32' of the endless belt 32 and an inside idler pulley 54 engaging the inside portion 32" of that belt are both arranged on a common idler arm or bracket 56, the pulleys being rotatably mounted on the arm such that they "remain in a fixed orientation with respect to each other when the idler arm 56 is pivoted"; the arm carrying the two pulleys on legs meeting at its pivot, the angle formed by the rotational axis of the back-side idler pulley, the pivot axis of the idler arm at the vertex, and the rotational axis of the inside idler pulley being "between about 75 to 115 degrees," with the inside pulley leg measuring 40 to 60 percent of the back-side pulley leg; Eavenson, Figs. 3-4; claims 1-3). Eavenson further teaches that this arrangement "maximizes belt wrap of the drive and driven pulleys" and maintains alignment of the belt as it enters them (Col. 4, Line 42).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have mounted the two guide pulleys (sheaves 422', 422") of Djuve on a single angled, L-shaped carrier in accordance with Eavenson's common idler arm 56, in order to fix the mutual positions of the two guide pulleys rigidly with respect to one another and thereby maintain the belt-path geometry that leads the drive belt correctly onto the first lifting shaft pulley and preserves the belt wrap at that pulley, as Eavenson teaches for the same two-idler arrangement. Because Djuve's two guide pulleys occupy angularly offset positions partially around the first lifting shaft pulley, a carrier extending between those two mounting positions takes the angled, L-shaped form taught by Eavenson. Such a modification is the application of a known technique to a known device ready for the improvement to yield the predictable result of a rigidly fixed two-pulley belt-guiding arrangement. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007); MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Djuve (WO 2021/209337 A1) (Cited on IDS provided 12/17/2024) in view of Vogi et al. (GB 2 096 705 A), hereinafter “Vogi.”
Regarding Claim 47, Djuve discloses:
The container handling vehicle of claim 29, as set forth above.
Djuve further discloses the drive belt (418) engaging pulleys on both its inner surface and its outer surface (Djuve, page 17, lines 22-28) but identifies the force transferring element only generically as “e.g. belt” and does not expressly disclose wherein the drive belt is double cogged.
Relatively pertinent to the problem, Vogi teaches:
wherein the drive belt is double cogged (“an endless flexible motion transmitting element 24, preferably a double-sided timing belt like that marketed by the Power Transmission Division of Uniroyal, Inc.” trained around toothed pulleys (sprockets 8, 22, 23) so that the driven shafts “both rotate in a direction opposite to that of crankshaft 4” (Vogi, page 4, lines 28-49; Fig. 1), the belt having “opposite faces, each of which is drivingly engageable with the circumference of a toothed pulley,” with one face engaging the toothed circumference of one pulley and the opposite face engaging the toothed circumference of another pulley to produce opposite rotation (Vogi, claim 7).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided the drive belt of Djuve as a double-cogged (double-sided toothed) belt as taught by Vogi, in order to obtain positive, slip-free toothed engagement at every pulley of Djuve’s loop, including the lifting shaft pulley engaged by the belt’s outer surface. This is the simple substitution of a known double-sided timing belt for Djuve’s generic endless belt in an arrangement that, like Vogi’s arrangement, drives counter-rotating parallel shafts from opposite faces of one belt, yielding the predictable result of positive drive on both faces. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(A).
Claims 48-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Djuve (WO 2021/209337 A1) (Cited on IDS provided 12/17/2024) in view of Fjeldheim (US 2020/0346864 A1), hereinafter “Fjeldheim.”
Regarding Claim 48, Djuve discloses:
The container handling vehicle of claim 29, as set forth above.
Djuve further discloses the first lifting shaft pulley and the second lifting shaft pulley (lifting shaft wheels 423′, 423″) as a matched pair in each of Figs. 4D-4I, but does not expressly recite wherein the first lifting shaft pulley and the second lifting shaft pulley are a pair of pulleys of a same diameter. Figs. 4D-4I do, however, suggest the claimed relationship, depicting the two lifting shaft pulleys as equal in diameter to one another in every setup.
In the same field of endeavor, Fjeldheim teaches:
wherein the first lifting shaft pulley and the second lifting shaft pulley are a pair of pulleys of a same diameter (lifting shafts of “equal or near equal diameter” which “provides for a similar angular velocity of the reeling surfaces on the first and second lifting shafts when the lifting shafts are rotated, and results in that the lifting frame is substantially leveled during lifting and lowering” (Fjeldheim, Par. [0038])).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided Djuve’s first and second lifting shaft pulleys as a pair of pulleys of the same diameter, employing lifting shafts of equal diameter as taught by Fjeldheim, because in a single-belt drive the shaft pulleys’ diameters set the rotational speeds of the respective shafts, so that equal pulley diameters together with equal shaft (spool) diameters produce equal band take-up at all four suspension points and keep the lifting frame and the suspended container level. This is the application of a known technique (Fjeldheim’s equal-diameter synchronization) to a known device (Djuve’s belt drive) to yield the predictable result of a level lift. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(D).
Regarding Claim 49, Djuve discloses:
The container handling vehicle of claim 29, as set forth above.
However, Djuve does not expressly recite wherein the motor comprises a brake device in the form of a ratchet device for braking the rotation of the first lifting shaft and the second lifting shaft.
In the same field of endeavor, Fjeldheim teaches:
wherein the motor comprises a brake device in the form of a ratchet device for braking the rotation of the first lifting shaft and the second lifting shaft (Fjeldheim discloses a container handling vehicle 9 having a lifting assembly 24 with first and second lifting shafts 25, 26 rotatably coupled by a force transferring element 32 in the form of an endless belt, and teaches that "[t]he lifting shaft(s) is preferably provided with a brake arrangement," the brake arrangement 40 comprising a locking pin 40′ cooperating with a gear connected for rotation with the first lifting shaft 25, "e.g. a ratchet mechanism," such that in the locked position the locking pin is in engagement with the gear, "thereby preventing rotation of the gear (and thus the lifting shaft)," and in the open position the lifting shaft "is free to rotate on any instructions from the motor(s)" (Par. [0090]); Fjeldheim, Figs. 5A, 5D, 6B, 6H. The brake arrangement 40 acts on the lifting shaft 25 which the motor 30 encircles, Fjeldheim teaching that "the at least one motor encircles one of the lifting shafts" and that "the lifting shaft may form an integral part of the electric motor," so that the brake arrangement is a brake device of the motor; and because the first and second lifting shafts 25, 26 are rotatably connected by the force transferring element 32, arresting the braked shaft arrests both) (Pars. [0036], [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided Djuve's lifting device motor 416′ with Fjeldheim's ratchet brake arrangement acting on the motor-driven rotation, in order to hold the suspended storage container in position and prevent the load from back-driving the drive train when the motor is deactivated, as Fjeldheim teaches for the same type of belt-coupled dual-lifting-shaft container handling vehicle. Because Djuve employs a single motor 416′ driving both lifting shafts 417′, 417″ through one common endless belt 418, braking the motor-driven rotation restrains both lifting shafts simultaneously without requiring separate shaft brakes. Such a modification applies a known braking technique to a known belt-driven lifting system to obtain the predictable result of safely holding the lift load in position. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007); MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Regarding Claim 50, Djuve/Fjeldheim discloses:
The container handling vehicle of claim 49, as set forth above.
However, Djuve does not expressly recite wherein the brake device is arranged on an opposite side of the motor compared to the first and second lifting shafts.
In the same field of endeavor, Fjeldheim teaches that the brake arrangement 40 "can be arranged on an inside or outside of the container vehicle housing" (Par. [0090]) and depicts both alternatives — inside the vehicle in Figs. 5A and 5D, and outside the vehicle in Figs. 6B and 6H — thereby teaching that the placement of the brake arrangement relative to the driven elements is a selection among disclosed alternatives rather than a functional constraint.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have mounted the brake device on the opposite, non-drive end of Djuve's motor 416′ — the side facing away from the first and second lifting shafts and the belt run — on a motor shaft extending through to that end, because the non-drive end of the motor is unoccupied by the drive belt pulley and the belt path, so that mounting the brake there avoids interference with the belt drive and keeps the brake accessible, while braking the common motor shaft at either end restrains the drive identically. The particular placement of the brake is a rearrangement of parts that does not modify its operation. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C).
Claim 53 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Djuve (WO 2021/209337 A1) (Cited on IDS provided 12/17/2024) in view of Austrheim (WO 2019/206439 A1) (Cited on IDS provided 12/17/2024).
Regarding Claim 53, Djuve discloses:
The container handling vehicle of claim 29, as set forth above.
Claim 53 recites "a first section and a second section of the container handling vehicle arranged side-by-side" without reciting any wall, boundary or other structure delimiting the sections from one another. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the recited sections are any two side-by-side regions of the vehicle frame satisfying the further recited conditions — the second section comprising a cavity for accommodating a storage container and the motor being arranged in the first section — and are not limited to regions bearing corresponding labels in the prior art. See MPEP § 2111.
However, Djuve does not expressly recite wherein the container handling vehicle comprises a vehicle frame defining a first section and a second section of the container handling vehicle arranged side-by-side, and wherein the second section comprises a cavity for accommodating a storage container, and wherein the motor is arranged in the first section.
In the same field of endeavor, Austrheim teaches:
wherein the container handling vehicle comprises a vehicle frame defining a first section and a second section of the container handling vehicle arranged side-by-side, and wherein the second section comprises a cavity for accommodating a storage container, and wherein the motor is arranged in the first section (Austrheim discloses a container handling vehicle (9’) comprising a vehicle body (13) with a first section (204) and a second section (205) arranged side-by-side, wherein one of the sections defines a storage container receiving space (cavity) configured to accommodate a storage container and the lifting device, and wherein the lifting device motor is accommodated in the other section; the section labels “first” and “second” are nominal designations. (Austrheim, Figs. 10A-10B)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified Djuve’s container handling vehicle to incorporate Austrheim’s side-by-side vehicle frame arrangement, with Djuve’s lifting device motor arranged in Austrheim’s motor-accommodating section (205) adjacent the container-accommodating cavity of section (204), while preserving Djuve’s low motor placement, in order to obtain the packaging and lifting-capacity advantages expressly taught by Austrheim, namely, permitting the lifting device motor to serve as the sole lifting device motor, increasing the available space in the upper portion of the container-accommodating section, and permitting use of a larger and more powerful motor, while maintain the favorable center of gravity and reduced risk of tilting that Djuve teaches for its low-arranged lifting device motor (the power source and motor “may be arranged in the lower section… in order to obtain a favorable center of gravity with reduced risk of tilting of the container handling vehicle in the event lifting a heavy storage container 106 and/or as a result of too high acceleration/deceleration,” Djuve, page 17, lines 1-5). Such modification would have been a combination of prior-art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007); MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Claims 29 and 54-56 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Benfold et al. (WO 2021/148657 A1), hereinafter “Benfold” (Cited on IDS provided 12/17/2024), in view of Fjeldheim (US 2020/0346864 A1) and further in view of Austrheim (WO 2019/206439 A1) (Cited on IDS provided 12/17/2024).
Regarding Claim 29, Benfold discloses:
a container handling vehicle (load-handling device 31) for moving storage containers (9) stacked in stacks (11) within an automated storage and retrieval system (storage structure 1), wherein the container handling vehicle is configured to move on a rail system (track structure 13) above storage columns and comprises a first set of wheels (35) for movement on the rail system in a first direction (x) and a second set of wheels (37) for movement on the rail system in a second direction (y) which is perpendicular to the first direction (Benfold, Figs. 1-4);
wherein the container handling vehicle comprises a lifting assembly (container-lifting mechanism 39 comprising raising and lowering assembly 51, Benfold, Figs. 4-5); which comprises:
a lifting frame connectable to a storage container (container-gripping assembly 43 configured to releasably grip a container 9, Benfold, Figs. 4-5);
a first lifting shaft and a second lifting shaft supported in an upper portion of the vehicle (shaft 56 carrying drive pulley 55, and the separate shaft carrying timing pulley 61, both supported on frame structure 69 in the upper portion 45 of body 33, Benfold, Fig. 6a);
two lifting bands extending from the first and second lifting shafts to the lifting frame (lifting tapes 41, the first spool 57 and the third spool 67 both mounted on and rotating with shaft 56 at opposite ends thereof, and the second spool 62 mounted on and rotating with the separate shaft carrying timing pully 61, each spool carrying a lifting tape whose distal end is anchored to the container-gripping assembly 43, Benfold, Fig. 6a);
a first lifting shaft pulley for rotation with the first lifting shaft (drive pulley 55 mounted on shaft 56, the shaft rotating with the drive pulley, Benfold, Fig. 6a);
a second lifting shaft pulley for rotation with the second lifting shaft (timing pulley 61 mounted on a separate shaft which rotates with the timing pulley 61, Benfold, Fig. 6a);
a tensioning pulley for tightening and loosening a drive belt (tensioner 66, Benfold teaching "one or more tensioners configured to maintain or adjust the tension in the timing belts," and that the positioning of tensioner 66 increases the contact area between the timing belt 54 and the drive pulley 55, Benfold, Fig. 6a; claim 12);
a motor for driving a drive belt for rotating the first lifting shaft and the second lifting shaft (single motor 52, Benfold teaching that the single motor drives the first set of spools and the second set of spools in synchronisation, Benfold, Fig. 6a; claim 9);
a drive belt pulley for outputting drive from the motor (timing pulley 53 connected to the output of motor 52, such that rotation of the output of the motor causes rotation of timing pulley 53, Benfold, Fig. 6a); and
a drive belt defining one closed loop, wherein the drive belt rotatably connects the first lifting shaft pulley, the second lifting shaft pulley, the tensioning pulley and the drive belt pulley (timing belt 54 "tensioned around three timing pulleys: timing pulley 53, the drive pulley 55, and timing pulley 61," with tensioner 66 acting on that belt, Benfold, Fig. 6a).
However, Benfold does not expressly disclose:
a second lifting band extending from the second lifting shaft to the lifting frame, such that two lifting bands extend from each of the first and second lifting shafts (Benfold disclosing two lifting bands from the first lifting shaft, spools 57 and 67 on shaft 56, but one from the second, spool 62);
at least one guide pulley connected by the drive belt;
the first lifting shaft pulley being in contact with an outer surface of the drive belt and the second lifting shaft pulley being in contact with an inner surface of the drive belt; and
wherein the motor is arranged at a lower elevation than the first and second lifting shafts.
In the same field of endeavor, Fjeldheim teaches a container handling vehicle (9) having a lifting assembly (24) (Figs. 5A, 5B, and 5E; Pars. [0116-0117]) in which:
two lifting bands extend from each of the first and second lifting shafts to the lifting frame (lifting elements 25', 25" extending from the first lifting shaft 25 and lifting elements 26', 26" extending from the second lifting shaft 26 to the lifting frame, Fjeldheim teaching that there may be four lifting elements in total, two from each of the first and second lifting shafts) (Figs. 5A, 5B, and 5E; Pars. [0093, 0117-0119]);
at least one guide pulley connected by the drive belt (guide wheels 33''', 33'''' arranged along the path of the force transferring element 32) (Figs. 7A-7F; Pars. [0120, 0130, 0132]); and
the first lifting shaft pulley being in contact with an outer surface of the drive belt and the second lifting shaft pulley being in contact with an inner surface of the drive belt (one of the lifting shaft wheels 33', 33" arranged inside the closed loop formed by the endless belt 32 and the other arranged outside that loop, so that the first and second lifting shafts 25, 26 rotate in opposite directions) (Figs. 7A-7F; Pars. [0040, 0048, 0120, 0130]).
Further in the same field of endeavor, Austrheim teaches:
a container handling vehicle (9') in which the lifting device motor (211, 211') is accommodated in a section of the vehicle body (13) separate from and below the lifting axle (216) it drives, the motor being coupled to the lifting axle through an angled transmission (215) oriented downward (Austrheim, Figs. 10B-10E). Austrheim teaches that relocating the sole lifting device motor in this manner frees space in the upper portion of the vehicle and permits the use of a larger and more powerful lifting motor (Page 19, Line 12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the raising and lowering assembly (51) of Benfold to spool two lifting bands from each of the two lifting shafts, to include at least one guide pulley in the closed loop of the drive belt, and to engage one lifting shaft pulley on the outer surface of the drive belt and the other on the inner surface, in accordance with Fjeldheim's known belt-routing arrangement, in order to suspend the lifting frame from four points for horizontal stability during lifting, to lead the drive belt correctly onto the two lifting shaft pulleys, and to obtain the counter-rotation of the two lifting shafts that a single common belt loop requires when the shafts spool their bands in opposite senses. This is the application of a known technique (Fjeldheim's inner/outer belt-face routing with guide wheels and four-band suspension) to a known device (Benfold's single-motor, single-loop belt drive) ready for the improvement, to yield the predictable result of a level four-point lift driven from one belt loop. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007); MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
It further would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have arranged Benfold's single motor (52) at a lower elevation than the first and second lifting shafts, in accordance with Austrheim's displaced lifting device motor arrangement, in order to free space in the upper portion (45) of the body (33) for the other operation components Benfold houses there and to permit the use of a larger and more powerful lifting motor, as Austrheim expressly teaches. Benfold already mounts the motor 52 remote from the shaft it drives — outboard of shaft 56 and of all rotational axes of the spools — and teaches that this remote mounting helps balance the centre of mass of the vehicle; relocating that same remotely mounted motor downward in accordance with Austrheim continues to serve that stated purpose while obtaining Austrheim's additional packaging benefit, the belt drive already in place accommodating the change in motor position. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(G).
Regarding Claim 54, Benfold discloses:
an automated storage and retrieval system (storage and retrieval system comprising storage structure 1 and a plurality of load-handling devices 31 (Benfold, Figs. 1-3; claim 26) comprising:
a rail system (track structure 13 located on top of the horizontal members 5, 7 of the storage structure 1) (Benfold, Figs. 1-2), comprising a first set of parallel tracks arranged in a horizontal plane and extending in a first direction (x-direction tracks 17), and a second set of parallel tracks arranged in the horizontal plane and extending in a second direction which is orthogonal to the first direction (y-direction tracks 19, extending transverse to the tracks 17), which first and second sets of tracks form a grid pattern in the horizontal plane comprising a plurality of adjacent grid cells (the horizontal members 5, 7 forming a grid pattern defining a plurality of grid cells, (Benfold, Figs. 1-2), each comprising an access opening defined by a pair of neighboring tracks of the first set of tracks and a pair of neighboring tracks of the second set of tracks (the tracks 17, 19 defining apertures 15 at the centres of the grid cells, the x-direction tracks 17 being provided in pairs separated by channels 21 and the y-direction tracks 19 being provided in pairs separated by channels 23, the apertures 15 being sized to allow containers 9 located beneath the grid cells to be lifted and lowered through the apertures 15) (Benfold, Fig. 2); and
a plurality of stacks of storage containers arranged in storage columns located beneath the rail system, wherein each storage column is located vertically below an access opening (containers 9 arranged in stacks 11 beneath the grid cells defined by the grid pattern, one stack 11 of containers 9 per grid cell, the upright members 3 forming a plurality of vertical storage locations beneath the grid within which the containers are stacked and guided) (Benfold, Fig. 1); and
wherein the automated storage and retrieval system comprises at least one container handling vehicle of claim 29 (a plurality of load-handling devices 31 moving on top of the storage structure 1) (Benfold, Fig. 3; claim 26).
The container handling vehicle of claim 29 incorporated by claim 54 is met by the combination of Benfold in view of Fjeldheim and further in view of Austrheim as set forth above.
Regarding Claim 55, Benfold discloses:
a method of lifting a storage container using the container handling vehicle of claim 29 (as met by the combination set forth above), wherein the method comprises:
positioning the container handling vehicle above a stack of storage containers in a storage column, wherein the stack comprises a target storage container (the load-handling devices 31 are provided with sets of wheels engaging the corresponding x- or y-direction tracks 17, 19 enabling the bots 31 to travel across the track structure 13 and reach specific grid cells, one stack per grid cell; the lowering step is performed once the bot has “reached its intended destination,” at which point the container-lifting mechanism 39 lowers the container-gripping assembly 43 out of the cavity in the lower portion 47 and into the intended position, which may be a stack 11 of containers 9) (Page 18, Line 15) (Figs. 1, 3, and 5);
operating the motor in a first direction to rotate the drive belt and thus the first lifting shaft and the second lifting shaft thereby lowering the lifting frame into contact with an uppermost storage container of the stack ("causing rotation in a first direction of an output of the single motor (52), thereby lowering the container-gripping assembly (43) to a container (9) stacked in a stack (11 ) of containers (9)," Benfold, claim 20); the rotation of timing pulley 53 by motor 52 causing rotation of timing belt 54, which rotates drive pulley 55 and shaft 56 and thereby unwinds tape 41 from spool 57 to lower the distal end of the tape, Benfold, Fig. 6a);
connecting the lifting frame to the uppermost storage container ("causing the container-gripping assembly (43) to engage the container (9)" Benfold, claim 20; the container-gripping assembly 43 comprising gripping means configured to engage with features of the containers 9, which may hook under the rims or lips of the containers or clamp or grasp them, Benfold, Fig. 4); and
operating the motor in a second direction, which second direction is opposite the first direction, to rotate the drive belt and thus the first lifting shaft and the second lifting shaft thereby lifting the lifting frame and the connected storage container above the rail system ("causing rotation in a second direction of the output of the single motor, thereby raising the container-gripping assembly and the engaged container by operation of the single motor used to lower the container-gripping assembly," Benfold, claim 20; the engaged container 9 being accommodated in the container-receiving space in the lower portion 47 of the body 33, sized such that the bot 31 can move across the track structure 13 without the underside of the container 9 catching on the track structure, Benfold, Fig. 5; claim 21).
Benfold does not expressly recite stopping the motor when the lifting frame is in contact with the uppermost storage container.
However, Benfold expressly contemplates stopping the motor, teaching that in the disclosed single-motor arrangement "only a single brake is required to slow or stop the motor and therefore the winding or unwinding of the different spools 57, 62, 67, 68." Further, as would be understood by those having ordinary skill in the art, operating the motor to lower the container-gripping assembly into contact with the container and thereafter causing the gripping means to engage features of that container necessarily entails stopping the motor at the point of contact, since the gripping means cannot engage a container from which the assembly is still descending; and operating the motor first in one direction to lower and thereafter in the opposite direction to raise, as Benfold's claim 17 recites, necessarily includes stopping the motor between the two operations, the stop occurring with the container-gripping assembly lowered into contact with the container to which it is then connected.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have stopped the single motor 52 of Benfold when the container-gripping assembly 43 reached the uppermost storage container, using the brake Benfold provides for that purpose, in order to permit the gripping means to engage the container before the motor is reversed to raise the load. Such a step is the predictable operation of the reversible single-motor lift Benfold discloses. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007); MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding Claim 56, Benfold/Fjeldheim/Austrheim discloses:
The method of claim 55, as set forth above.
wherein the first lifting shaft and the second lifting shaft rotate in opposite directions (as set forth for claim 29 above, Fjeldheim teaches arranging one lifting shaft wheel inside the closed loop formed by the endless belt 32 and the other outside that loop, such that the first and second lifting shafts 25, 26, via the first and second lifting shaft wheels 33', 33" respectively, rotate in opposite directions; in the combination, the first and second lifting shafts of Benfold as so modified likewise counter-rotate).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20240262617 A1, A Storage And Retrieval System, relates to the field of remotely operated load handling devices on tracks located on a grid framework structure for handling storage containers or bins stacked in the grid framework structure, more specifically to a grid framework structure for supporting the remotely operated load handling devices. US 7090055 B1 relates to a brake apparatus and, more particularly, to a brake specifically designed for use in a boat lift.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fathi Abdelsalam whose telephone number is (571) 270-0380. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 10 AM to 6 PM ET.
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, 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.
/ERNESTO A SUAREZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/FATHI K. ABDELSALAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights