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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,145,012. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims contain the same invention with only minor changes in language of the claimed elements and the differences in wording do not render the scope patentably distinct.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 20, it is unclear if “at least one first belt wheel” and “at least one second belt wheel” are the same as previously introduced in claim 19 or if new elements are being introduced.
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.
Claims 1, 11-14 and 16-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fryer (WO 2015/140216), cited by Applicant.
Regarding claim 1, Fryer discloses an automated storage and retrieval system comprising:
a storage grid comprising storage columns arranged in rows, in which storage containers can be stacked one on top of another (Fig.4);
a rail system comprising a first set of parallel rails arranged in a horizontal plane and extending in a first direction, and a second set of parallel rails arranged in the horizontal plane and extending in a second direction which is orthogonal to the first direction, which first and second sets of rails form a grid pattern in the horizontal plane comprising a plurality of adjacent grid cells (Fig.4);
at least one container handling vehicle configured to move on the rail system in at least one of the first direction and the second direction (Fig.10); and
a service vehicle (11, Fig.10), comprising a container vehicle handling part for mechanically interacting with the at least one container handling vehicle (Fig.10), an operational part for controlling operations of the service vehicle (Page 3, lines 16-22), and propulsion means configured for allowing movement of the service vehicle in any direction over a top of the rail system during operation (6, 7).
Regarding claim 11, Fryer further discloses wherein the operational part of the service vehicle comprises: a propulsion means motor allowing movement of the service vehicle along the horizontal plane (6, 7), and an operating system allowing an operator to control and regulate both moving direction and speed of the service vehicle relative to the rail system (Page 3, lines 16-22).
Regarding claim 12, Fryer further discloses wherein the service vehicle further comprises a registration unit being configured to allow visual inspection of surroundings of the service vehicle (camera means (60).
Regarding claim 13, Fryer further discloses wherein the service vehicle is arranged for transporting at least one of the at least one container handling vehicle in the horizontal plane and for transporting one or more people (Fig.16).
Regarding claim 14, Fryer further discloses wherein the service vehicle comprises a transmitter for establishing signal communication with a remote control system (Page 8, lines 28-34).
Regarding claim 16, Fryer further discloses a method of operating a service vehicle in the automated storage and retrieval system of claim 1, wherein the method comprises: guiding the service vehicle to a first position on the rail system adjacent to at least one storage container vehicle by operating the operational part, controlling a transfer device (Page 3, lines 16-22) to transfer the at least one container handling vehicle between an operating position on the rail system and a transport position above the rail system (Fig.10-11), and guiding the service vehicle to a predetermined second position (any position) on or outside the rail system.
Regarding claim 17, Fryer discloses a service vehicle for operating in an automated storage and retrieval system of a type having (i) a storage grid comprising storage columns arranged in rows, in which storage containers can be stacked one on top of another, (ii) a rail system comprising a first set of parallel rails arranged in a horizontal plane and extending in a first direction, and a second set of parallel rails arranged in the horizontal plane and extending in a second direction which is orthogonal to the first direction, which first and second sets of rails form a grid pattern in the horizontal plane comprising a plurality of adjacent grid cells (Fig.4), and (iii) at least one container handling vehicle configured to move on the rail system in at least one of the first direction and the second direction (Fig.10);
wherein the service vehicle (11) comprises:
a container vehicle handling part for mechanically interacting with the at least one container handling vehicle (Fig.10),
an operational part for controlling operations of the service vehicle (Page 3, lines 16-22), and
propulsion means (6, 7) configured for allowing movement of the service vehicle in any direction over a top of the rail system during operation (Fig.10, 7a).
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 of this title, 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 2-10, 15, 18-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fryer (WO 2015/140216) in view of Blanchard (US Pub App 2016/0250959), cited by Applicant.
Regarding claim 2, Fryer further discloses when moving over the top of the rail system an overall length L exceeding a distance across two grid cells in the first direction and the second direction (Fig.12).
Fryer does not further specifically disclose wherein the propulsion means comprises: a first caterpillar track comprising a longitudinally extending first endless belt, a second caterpillar track comprising a longitudinally extending second endless belt directed parallel to the first endless belt of the first caterpillar track, and a belt motor driving the first endless belt and the second endless belt, wherein the first caterpillar track and the second caterpillar track have, wherein a movement of the first caterpillar track and the second caterpillar track over the top of the rail system signifies that the first caterpillar track and the second caterpillar track are supported on the rail system, but do not engage with the first set of parallel rails and the second set of parallel rails themselves.
Blanchard teaches a self-propelled flat-bed trolley is provided which includes motorized locomotion means, a load-bearing platform, an articulated crane wherein the motorized locomotion means comprises caterpillar tracks (311, Fig.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified Fryer in view of Blanchard to use a first and second caterpillar track with a motor since caterpillar tracks are known to have high stability and load capacity along with excellent traction and terrain adaptability.
Regarding claim 3, Fryer further teaches wherein the first caterpillar track further comprises at least one first belt wheel (Blanchard Fig.1) contacting the first endless belt (311), wherein the belt motor is configured to drive the first endless belt via the at least one first belt wheel, and the second caterpillar track further comprises at least one second belt wheel (Blanchard Fig.1) contacting the second endless belt (311), wherein the belt motor is configured to drive the second endless belt via the at least one second belt wheel.
Regarding claim 4, Fryer further teaches wherein the first caterpillar track further comprises at least one belt wheel (Blanchard Fig.1) contacting a first inner surface of first endless belt (311), wherein the at least one belt wheel has a first rotational axis parallel to a second rotational axis of the first endless belt, and the second caterpillar track further comprises at least one belt wheel (Blanchard Fig.1) contacting a second inner surface of second endless belt (311), wherein the at least one belt wheel has a third rotational axis parallel to a fourth rotational axis of the second endless belt (Fig.1).
Regarding claim 5, Fryer further teaches wherein the first caterpillar track and the second caterpillar track are spaced apart by a gap in a direction of rotational axes of the first endless belt and the second endless belt (Blanchard, Fig.7).
Regarding claim 6, Fryer not further specifically disclose wherein the container vehicle handling part of the service vehicle comprises: a transfer device configured to transfer the at least one container handling vehicle between an operating position on the rail system and a transport position within a vehicle body, and a transfer motor configured to power the transfer device to allow said transfer of the at least one container handling vehicle.
Blanchard teaches a self-propelled flat-bed trolley is provided which includes motorized locomotion means, a load-bearing platform, an articulated crane (300, Fig.4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified Fryer in view of Blanchard to use a transfer device with a motor in order to ease the burden of the user.
Regarding claim 7, Fryer further teaches wherein at least part of the transfer device is configured to move between an upper position and a lower position relative to the horizontal plane (articulated).
Regarding claim 8, Fryer further teaches wherein the transfer device is arranged at least partly between caterpillar tracks (Blanchard Fig.4).
Regarding claim 9, Fryer further teaches wherein the transfer device is configured to support the at least one container handling vehicle from below (Blanchard 301, Fig.1, 4).
Regarding claim 10, Fryer further teaches wherein the transfer device comprises a base plate onto which the at least one container handling vehicle may be supported (Blanchard 301).
Regarding claim 15, Fryer does not further specifically disclose wherein the container vehicle handling part of the service vehicle comprises a transfer device configured to transfer the at least one container handling vehicle between an operating position on the rail system and a transport position within a vehicle body; wherein the transfer device comprises an attachment device for releasable attachment to the at least one container handling vehicle, and a vertical linear actuator attached at one end at least indirectly to the vehicle body and another end at least indirectly to the attachment device, wherein the vertical linear actuator is configured to displace the attachment device relative to the vehicle body in a vertical direction.
Blanchard teaches a self-propelled flat-bed trolley is provided which includes motorized locomotion means, a load-bearing platform, an articulated crane (300, Fig.4) comprising an attachment device for releasable attachment (310) and a vertical linear actuator (309).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified Fryer in view of Blanchard to use a transfer device with a motor, attachment device for releasable attachment and linear actuator in order to ease the burden of the user.
Regarding claim 18, Fryer further discloses an overall length L exceeding a distance across two grid cells in the first direction and the second direction (Fig.12).
Fryer does not further specifically disclose wherein the propulsion means comprises: a first caterpillar track comprising a longitudinally extending first endless belt, a second caterpillar track comprising a longitudinally extending second endless belt directed parallel to the first endless belt of the first caterpillar track, and a belt motor driving the first endless belt and the second endless belt, wherein the first caterpillar track and the second caterpillar track have, when moving over the top of the rail system, wherein a movement of the first caterpillar track and the second caterpillar track over the top of the rail system signifies that the first caterpillar track and the second caterpillar track are supported on the rail system, but do not engage with the first set of parallel rails and second set of parallel rails themselves.
Blanchard teaches a self-propelled flat-bed trolley is provided which includes motorized locomotion means, a load-bearing platform, an articulated crane wherein the motorized locomotion means comprises caterpillar tracks (311, Fig.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified Fryer in view of Blanchard to use a first and second caterpillar track with a motor since caterpillar tracks are known to have high stability and load capacity along with excellent traction and terrain adaptability.
Regarding claim 19, Fryer further teaches wherein the first caterpillar track further comprises at least one first belt wheel (Blanchard Fig.1) contacting the first endless belt (311), wherein the belt motor is configured to drive the first endless belt via the at least one first belt wheel , and the second caterpillar track further comprises at least one second belt wheel (Blanchard Fig.1) contacting the second endless belt (311), wherein the belt motor is configured to drive the second endless belt via the at least one second belt wheel (Fig.1).
Regarding claim 20, Fryer further teaches wherein the first caterpillar track further comprises at least one first belt wheel (see 112 rejection, above) (Blanchard Fig.1) contacting a first inner surface of first endless belt, wherein the at least one first belt wheel has a first rotational axis parallel to a second rotational axis of the first endless belt, and the second caterpillar track further comprises at least one second belt wheel (Blanchard Fig.1) contacting a second inner surface of first endless belt, wherein the at least one second belt wheel has a third rotational axis parallel to a fourth rotational axis of the second endless belt (Fig.1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Franzen and Hognaland further disclose elements of an automated storage and retrieval system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY K ROMANO whose telephone number is (571)272-9318. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Saul Rodriguez can be reached on 571-272-7097. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ASHLEY K ROMANO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3652
/GREGORY W ADAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights