DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 8 and 13 have been amended but still have issues remaining. Applicant’s remarks do not add any further explanation as to how the issues were resolved. In the previous action, an attempt was made to explain all the issues with the wording. While the claims were partly corrected by removing the “access panels and blanking off panels”; the claim as whole still is confusing in what is actually required. According to the overall goal of the invention as provided by the specification, the goal is to allow swapping between access panels and blanking off panels at any given access point. However, the claim does not explicitly or clearly reflect this because of the manner in which the language is set forth. The claim never actually requires both types of panels to be present. For example, the claim recites “each working surface section comprising a access panel or a blanking off panel”. This means only one of this panel is required and this is further confusing because the claim only requires one or more working surface sections or rather the broadest situation would be that only one working surface section is required. Therefore, in the situation where only one working surface section is required and this section need only be an access panel or a blanking off panel, you are left with only requiring one of these panels to be fitted to the station.
It is recommended to reword the claim in some way that specifically claims the presence of both types of panels. For instance, two working surface sections would have to be claimed, one having an access panel and one having a blanking off panel and then some clauses claiming how the panels can be interchanged. Otherwise, there would have to be some sort of kit claim claimed but that may introduce other clarity issues.
In addition, it is confusing to know what is actually required by the claim since everything is written in alternatives and thus limitations such as the panels having the same size doesn’t make sense since the claim could in theory be limited to a singular panel.
These issues permutate into the dependent claims since some of these claims only further define certain panels and thus may not be required or further limit the situation in which that panel isn’t required.
A prior art rejection will be made as best as possible, however, due to the issues in the claims there may not be prior art rejections possible.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Bianco et al. (USP 11583075), using PCT pub date.
Regarding claim 1, Bianco et al. discloses a container accessing station (seen in fig.2) configured to offer multiple access points (various points under doors 40) where access to each access point may be permitted through an upper working surface of the container accessing station to an underlying container that has been delivered to a particular access point,
wherein the container accessing station further comprises one or more working surface sections, wherein each working surface section comprising an access panel or a blanking-off panel and having a common attachment configuration to allow either the access panel or the blanking-off panel to be fitted as part of the container accessing station at any of the multiple access points, wherein the access panel and the blanking-off panel have a same size (as best understood, in the broadest form only one panel is required for the station, panel 40 could read on either an access panel or blanking off panel because Applicant’s have not even structurally defined what each of these panels are and given plain meaning panel 40 could function so as to provide access and could function so as to blank off or close off the access points and the panel would be the same size and there are common attachment points or hinges where it would be attached).
Regarding claim 2, Bianco et al. discloses the container accessing station of claim 1, wherein the one or more working surface sections is provided as a row of working surface sections (see fig.2).
Regarding claim 3, Bianco et al. discloses the container accessing station of claim 1, wherein the container accessing station comprises a top surface support structure arranged to support each working surface section from below (seen in part in fig.4, there is a framework supporting the doors and other structure).
Regarding claim 4, Bianco et al. discloses the container accessing station of claim 3, wherein the top surface support structure comprises rails and/or bars (seen in fig.4 at numeral 10) supporting an outer perimeter of a particular working surface section among the one or more working surface sections.
Regarding claim 5, Bianco et al. discloses the container accessing station of claim 1, wherein the access panel comprises a portion of an electrical and/or control connector for providing power to and/or control of moving parts (the doors may be automatically operated as per the disclosure in Bianco and thus would have a portion of electrical connectors).
Regarding claim 6, Bianco et al. discloses the container accessing station of claim 1, wherein the access panel comprises an access opening provided with an automated shutter (fig.2, shutter seen at 26, 31) which can open to provide access to the underlying container that has been delivered within the container accessing station to beneath a particular access point in the upper working surface of the container accessing station.
Regarding claim 7, Bianco et al. discloses the container accessing station of claim 6, wherein the automated shutter is a retractable cover arranged to open only if a predetermined condition is satisfied and thereby permit access to the container through the access opening (as discussed in Bianco, these shutters only open when there is a container ready to be accessed at the specific location).
Regarding claim 8, Bianco et al. discloses a delivery system comprising: a container accessing station comprising one or more working surface sections, wherein each working surface section comprising an access panel or a blanking-off panel and having a common attachment configuration to allow either the access panel or the blanking-off panel to be fitted as part of the container accessing station at any of the multiple access points, wherein the access panel and the blanking-off panel have a same size (as best understood, in the broadest form only one panel is required for the station, panel 40 could read on either an access panel or blanking off panel because Applicant’s have not even structurally defined what each of these panels are and given plain meaning panel 40 could function so as to provide access and could function so as to blank off or close off the access points and the panel would be the same size and there are common attachment points or hinges where it would be attached); a delivery rail comprising at least a first set of parallel rails arranged in a horizontal plane and extending in a first direction, and at least a second set of parallel rails arranged in the horizontal plane and extending in a second direction which is orthogonal to the first direction (seen generally in fig.1; perpendicular sets of rails), the at least first and second sets of rails together defining a delivery grid of delivery grid cells; and a delivery vehicle (4) adapted for carrying a storage container and operating on the delivery rail for transporting the storage container to/from the container accessing station.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8, 9, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by Gravelle et al. (USP 12286301).
Regarding claim 1, Gravelle discloses a container accessing station (seen in fig.4) configured to offer multiple access points (seen in fig.5) where access to each access point may be permitted through an upper working surface of the container accessing station to an underlying container that has been delivered to a particular access point,
wherein the container accessing station further comprises one or more working surface sections, access panels, and blanking-off panels wherein each working surface section comprising an access panel or a blanking-off panel and having a common attachment configuration to allow either the access panel or the blanking-off panel to be fitted as part of the container accessing station at any of the multiple access points, wherein the access panel and the blanking-off panel have a same size (as best understood, in the broadest form only one panel is required for the station, panel 50 could read on either an access panel or blanking off panel because Applicant’s have not even structurally defined what each of these panels are and given plain meaning panel 50 could function so as to provide access and could function so as to blank off or close off the access points, as disclosed in col.20, lines 14-20, there could be various combinations of these panels utilized which would control the placement of the access opening 52; note the overall panel would be the same size and have a common attachment point to the station).
Regarding claim 2, Gravelle discloses the container accessing station of claim 1, wherein the one or more working surface sections is provided as a row of working surface sections (see fig.4).
Regarding claim 3, Gravelle discloses the container accessing station of claim 1, wherein the container accessing station comprises a top surface support structure arranged to support each working surface section from below (seen in part in fig.4-6, there is a framework supporting the doors and other structure).
Regarding claim 4, Gravelle discloses the container accessing station of claim 3, wherein the top surface support structure comprises rails and/or bars (seen in fig.6a at numeral 52) supporting an outer perimeter of a particular working surface section among the one or more working surface sections.
Regarding claim 8, Gravelle discloses a delivery system comprising: a container accessing station configured to offer multiple access points (seen in fig.5) where access to each access point may be permitted through an upper working surface of the container accessing station to an underlying container that has been delivered to a particular access point,
wherein the container accessing station further comprises one or more working surface sections, access panels, and blanking-off panels wherein each working surface section comprising an access panel or a blanking-off panel and having a common attachment configuration to allow either the access panel or the blanking-off panel to be fitted as part of the container accessing station at any of the multiple access points, wherein the access panel and the blanking-off panel have a same size (as best understood, in the broadest form only one panel is required for the station, panel 50 could read on either an access panel or blanking off panel because Applicant’s have not even structurally defined what each of these panels are and given plain meaning panel 50 could function so as to provide access and could function so as to blank off or close off the access points, as disclosed in col.20, lines 14-20, there could be various combinations of these panels utilized which would control the placement of the access opening 52; note the overall panel would be the same size and have a common attachment point to the station); a delivery rail comprising at least a first set of parallel rails arranged in a horizontal plane and extending in a first direction, and at least a second set of parallel rails arranged in the horizontal plane and extending in a second direction which is orthogonal to the first direction (seen generally in fig.5; perpendicular sets of rails), the at least first and second sets of rails together defining a delivery grid of delivery grid cells; and a delivery vehicle (14) adapted for carrying a storage container and operating on the delivery rail for transporting the storage container to/from the container accessing station.
Regarding claim 9, Gravelle discloses the delivery system of claim 8, wherein the delivery grid extends into the container accessing station and provides one or more delivery grid cells for the delivery vehicle at the access point as well as a plurality of delivery grid cells adjacent the one or more delivery grid cells of the access point, such that there is more than one path to and/or from the access point for the delivery vehicle via the plurality of delivery grid cells (evident from the grid structure).
Regarding claim 13, Gravelle discloses a method of reconfiguring a container accessing station configured to offer multiple access points (seen in fig.5) where access to each access point may be permitted through an upper working surface of the container accessing station to an underlying container that has been delivered to a particular access point, wherein the container accessing station further comprises one or more working surface sections, access panels, and blanking-off panels wherein each working surface section comprising an access panel or a blanking-off panel and having a common attachment configuration to allow either the access panel or the blanking-off panel to be fitted as part of the container accessing station at any of the multiple access points, wherein the access panel and the blanking-off panel have a same size (as best understood, in the broadest form only one panel is required for the station, panel 50 could read on either an access panel or blanking off panel because Applicant’s have not even structurally defined what each of these panels are and given plain meaning panel 50 could function so as to provide access and could function so as to blank off or close off the access points, as disclosed in col.20, lines 14-20, there could be various combinations of these panels utilized which would control the placement of the access opening 52; note the overall panel would be the same size and have a common attachment point to the station);
the method comprising: with a container accessing station as recited in claim 1: unlocking a first surface section by releasing or removing attachment means securing the first surface section to a top surface of the container accessing station; removing the first surface section; replacing the first surface section by a second surface section; locking the second surface section to the top surface of the container accessing station by the attachment means (as mentioned before, the tops 50 could be readily replaced as per the disclosure and one having ordinary skill in the art would understand doing so would be achieved by removing their attachment means); and updating a control system to know that a new access point has been provided or closed below the second surface section (Gravelle discloses a control system which is able to detect the presence of a workers hand or vehicle at a particular access point, accordingly it would follow that the control system would be updated depending on the location of the access point so as to activate/deactivate the associated safety detection system).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 112 b issues, there are still issues present in the claim, please see the rejection above.
Regarding the prior art rejections, the arguments all seem to focus on what Applicant’s believe their claim is limited to but not drawn to the interpretation made above which is based on the broadest reading possible of the claims. The claims do not require both an access panel and a blanking off panel, they simply require one or the other. Therefore, the prior art need only have one panel and an attachment point. The manner in which the claim is written is confusing because the end product is always one possible configuration. Without claiming multiple working surface sections, a prior art only needs to have one section and one panel. In addition, a prior art only needs to have the capability to swap panels even if it’s the same panel, which either prior art utilized above is capable of. Both have explicit recitations stating how panels could be changed, such as col.7, lines 34-41 in Bianco (in addition one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that panels could be swapped at the hinges by simply replacing them), and col.20, lines 14-20 in Gravelle. It is further important to note that in Gravelle, the capability of swapping panels are embodied as the entire panel being replaced to have access openings at different spots. Since the claim doesn’t require multiple working surface sections and different types of panels in its broadest embodiment then the art reads on this.
Thus, given the breadth of the claims and the 112 b issues present, the prior art still reads on the claims and Applicant’s arguments appear to be focused on a reading of the claim that is not required.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Relevant art include other types of container access stations.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS C DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5461. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, John Olszewski can be reached at 571-272-2706. 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.
/THOMAS C DIAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights