DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status and Claim Objections (minor informalities)
Claims 1-31 are currently being examined.
Claim 2 contains a limitation with the phrase that reads “the plurality if elevatable belts” that requires correction to read “the plurality of elevatable belts””.
Claims 7, 17, and 30 each contain a phrase that reads “to be bought together” that requires correction to read “to be brought together”.
Drawing Objections
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a).
The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 17, 21, 24, 27, 29, and 30. Therefore, the “first support structure” must be shown, including reference numerals as appropriate, or the feature canceled from the claims.
The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 24, 26, and 31. Therefore, the “second support structure” must be shown, including reference numerals as appropriate, or the feature canceled from the claims.
The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in claims 3, 4, 5, 12, 14, 15, 27, and 28. Therefore, the “stationary shelving” must be shown, including reference numerals as appropriate, or the feature canceled from the claims.
The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in claims 2, 3, 6, 11, 16, 25, 26, 27, and 29. Therefore, the “elevatable belts” must be shown, including reference numerals as appropriate, or the feature canceled from the claims.
The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in claim 12. Therefore, the “bin support structure” must be shown, including reference numerals as appropriate, or the feature canceled from the claims.
The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in claim 19. Therefore, the “output support structure” must be shown, including reference numerals as appropriate, or the feature canceled from the claims.
No New Matter may be added.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification and Objections
The Specification is objected to because a “first support structure”, a second support structure”, a “bin support structure”, an “output support structure”, “stationary shelving”, and “elevatable belts” are neither disclosed nor otherwise described, as appropriate, in any detail to make it clearly understood to one skilled in the art the manner in which these components are used, positioned, and/or located with respect to the invention being claimed. Appropriate correction is required.
The Specification is further objected to for failing to disclose or describe in any detail whatsoever “an automated storage and retrieval system” as claimed in claim 20.
The 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. MPEP § 608.01
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 21-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Independent Claim 21 contains limitations with the phrases “receiving a plurality of objects”, “moving an automated mobile transfer unit”, “stopping the automated mobile transfer unit”, “raising the payload transfer system”, and “actuating the payload transfer system”. Claim 21 is a method claim and there is no structure, element, module, component, hardware, or apparatus identified as performing the various steps set forth herein. As a result, the claim fails to provide clear, concise, and exact terms to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention.
Dependent Claim 22 contains a limitation with the phrase “determining that the selected container of the plurality of containers is full or otherwise ready to be transferred”. Claim 22 is a method claim and there is no structure, element, module, component, hardware, or apparatus identified as performing the various steps set forth herein. As a result, the claim fails to provide clear, concise, and exact terms to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention.
Dependent Claim 23 contains a limitation with the phrase “determining that the selected container of the plurality of containers is full or otherwise ready to be transferred”. Claim 23 is a method claim and there is no structure, element, module, component, hardware, or apparatus identified as performing the various steps set forth herein. As a result, the claim fails to provide clear, concise, and exact terms to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention.
Dependent Claim 24 contains a limitation with the phrases “actuating the payload transfer system to move the selected container away” and “moving the selected container onto a second support structure”. Claim 24 is a method claim and there is no structure, element, module, component, hardware, or apparatus identified as performing the various steps set forth herein. As a result, the claim fails to provide clear, concise, and exact terms to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention.
Dependent Claim 25 contains a limitation with the phrases “raising the payload transfer system” and “raising each of the elevatable belts”. Claim 25 is a method claim and there is no structure, element, module, component, hardware, or apparatus identified as performing the various steps set forth herein. As a result, the claim fails to provide clear, concise, and exact terms to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention.
Dependent Claim 26 contains a limitation with the phrase “actuating the payload transfer system includes actuating at least one of the elevatable belt”. Claim 26 is a method claim and there is no structure, element, module, component, hardware, or apparatus identified as performing the various steps set forth herein. As a result, the claim fails to provide clear, concise, and exact terms to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention.
Claims 27-31 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 27, and 29 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, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
With respect to Claim 2, the phrase “..elevatable belts that may be raised and lowered…” implies that there is an option as to whether the elevatable belts are or are not raised or lowered. Therefore, it is unclear whether the language following the phrase is intended to be regarded as part of the invention or not. As a result, Claim 2 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter being regarded as the invention.
With respect to Claim 2, the phrase “..elevatable belts may engage…” implies that there is a possibility that the elevatable belts may or may not engage the selected container. Therefore, it is unclear whether the language following the phrase is intended to be regarded as part of the invention or not. As a result, Claim 2 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter being regarded as the invention.
With respect to Claim 2, the phrase “..elevatable belts may be actuated when elevated…” implies that there is a possibility that the elevatable belts may or may not be actuated to move the selected container. Therefore, it is unclear whether the language following the phrase is intended to be regarded as part of the invention or not. As a result, Claim 2 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter being regarded as the invention.
With respect to Claim 3, the phrase “..the payload transfer system may be elevated between adjacent tines…” implies that there is an option or possibility as to whether the payload transfer system will or will not be elevated between adjacent tines. Therefore, it is unclear whether the language following the phrase is intended to be regarded as part of the invention or not. As a result, Claim 3 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter being regarded as the invention.
With respect to Claim 6, the phrase “..the payload transfer system may be elevated between adjacent rollers…” implies that there is an option or possibility as to whether the payload transfer system will or will not be elevated between adjacent rollers. Therefore, it is unclear whether the language following the phrase is intended to be regarded as part of the invention or not. As a result, Claim 6 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter being regarded as the invention.
With respect to Claim 7, the phrases “biased to move bins” and “the containers of the plurality of bins” are unclear and fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter being regarded as the invention.
With respect to Claim 10, the phrase “biased to move any bins” is unclear and fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter being regarded as the invention.
With respect to Claim 11, the phrase “..elevatable belts that may be raised and lowered…” implies that there is an option as to whether the elevatable belts are or are not raised or lowered. Therefore, it is unclear whether the language following the phrase is intended to be regarded as part of the invention or not. As a result, Claim 11 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter being regarded as the invention.
With respect to Claim 11, the phrase “..elevatable belts may engage…” implies that there is a possibility that the elevatable belts may or may not engage the selected container. Therefore, it is unclear whether the language following the phrase is intended to be regarded as part of the invention or not. As a result, Claim 11 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter being regarded as the invention.
With respect to Claim 11, the phrase “..elevatable belts may be actuated when elevated…” implies that there is a possibility that the elevatable belts may or may not be actuated to move the selected container. Therefore, it is unclear whether the language following the phrase is intended to be regarded as part of the invention or not. As a result, Claim 11 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter being regarded as the invention.
With respect to Claim 12, the phrase “the bin support structure” lacks a proper antecedent basis that renders the claim indefinite.
With respect to Claim 16, the phrase “the container support structure” lacks a proper antecedent basis that renders the claim indefinite.
With respect to Claim 16, the phrase “..the payload transfer system may be elevated between adjacent rollers…” implies that there is an option or possibility as to whether the payload transfer system will or will not be elevated between adjacent rollers. Therefore, it is unclear whether the language following the phrase is intended to be regarded as part of the invention or not. As a result, Claim 16 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter being regarded as the invention.
With respect to Claim 17, the phrases “biased to move bins”, “the selected bin”, and, “the containers of the plurality of bins” are unclear with respect to the use of the word “bin” and fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter being regarded as the invention.
With respect to Claim 18, the phrase “a plurality of chutes” was introduced in Claim 15. Is the “plurality of chutes” in claim 18 somehow different from the “plurality of chutes” in claim 15? As a result of this ambiguity, Claim 18 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter being regarded as the invention.
With respect to Claim 20, the claim appears to be an independent claim based on the language of its preamble. However, an independent claim cannot refer to any other claim. Claim 20 refers to Claim 11 and to “An automated storage and retrieval system”. Claim 20 may be amended to include all of the claim limitations of Claim 11; otherwise, the claim must be canceled.
With respect to Claim 20, the claim recites “An automated storage and retrieval system”. A system is a compilation of one or more elements that are combined to perform a function. The claim does not recite any limitations and there are no dependent claim limitations that recite any structure, element, module, component, hardware, or apparatus (collectively, “structure”) that comprise(s) the “Automated storage and retrieval system”. In that regard, there is no structure recited to understand how the “Automated storage and retrieval system” performs its function of storing and retrieving objects. As a result, the claim fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
With respect to Claim 20, the phrase “the mobile transfer unit” lacks a proper antecedent basis that renders the claim indefinite.
With respect to Claim 21, the phrase “the selected bin” lacks a proper antecedent basis that renders the claim indefinite.
With respect to Claim 25, the phrase “..elevatable belts that may be raised and lowered…” implies that there is an option as to whether the elevatable belts are or are not raised or lowered. Therefore, it is unclear whether the language following the phrase is intended to be regarded as part of the invention or not. As a result, Claim 25 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter being regarded as the invention.
With respect to Claim 27, the phrase “..the payload transfer system may be elevated between adjacent tines…” implies that there is an option or possibility as to whether the payload transfer system will or will not be elevated between adjacent tines. Therefore, it is unclear whether the language following the phrase is intended to be regarded as part of the invention or not. As a result, Claim 27 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter being regarded as the invention.
With respect to Claim 29, the phrase “..the payload transfer system may be elevated between adjacent rollers…” implies that there is an option or possibility as to whether the payload transfer system will or will not be elevated between adjacent rollers. Therefore, it is unclear whether the language following the phrase is intended to be regarded as part of the invention or not. As a result, Claim 29 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter being regarded as the invention.
Claims 4, 5, 8, 12-15, 19, 22-24, 28, 30, and 31 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure because the prior art references contain subject matter that relates to one or more of Applicant’s claim limitations. Any hypothetical prior art rejection based on these references would require impermissible hindsight reasoning.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS RANDAZZO whose telephone number is (313)446-4903. The examiner can normally be reached between 9:00am and 4:00pm ET Monday through Thursday and 9:00am and 11:00am ET on Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Jacob Scott, can be reached on 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 the Patent Center. Unpublished application information in the Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in the Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about the 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.
/THOMAS RANDAZZO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655 July 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights