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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation, “a driver box including a raising and lowering control machine and a travel control machine, the driver box being fixed to the mast below the regeneration resistor.” in lines 2-4. Claim 1, from which claim 5 depends, recites the limitation, “a control machine configured to drive at least one of the raising and lowering motor and the traveling motor” in lines 8-9. It is unclear if the control machines claimed in claim 5 are new limitations or if they are parts of the control machine of claim 1. Are these control machines separate from the control machine introduced in claim 1? Are the “raising and lowering control machine” and the “travel control machine” components of the control machine of claim 1? Is the control machine of claim 1 intended to generally claim at least one of the raising and lowering control machine and the travel control machine recited in claim 5, and claim 5 further limits the “control machine” to include both aforementioned control machines?
For examination purposes it is interpreted that the driver box contains the control machine recited in claim 1 that further contains both a raising and lowering control machine and a travel control machine.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H0624520 A (Kamiide) in view of DE 102022000113 A1 (Pfaff).
Regarding claim 1, Kamiide teaches:
A stacker crane comprising:
a carrier section (8) configured to travel on a track (“traveling rail,” page 2 of the attached machine translation, last paragraph, lines 2-3);
a mast (12) provided upright on the carrier section;
a carriage (1) provided so as to be capable of being raised and lowered with respect to the mast; a raising and lowering motor (20) configured to raise and lower the carriage;
a traveling motor (traveling motor is within drive unit B) configured to cause the carrier section to travel;
a control machine (A) configured to drive at least one of the raising and lowering motor and the traveling motor; and
a regeneration resistor (16) configured to consume regenerative energy caused when at least one of the raising and lowering motor and the traveling motor carries out regeneration operation,
the mast having at least a first portion (lower portion) and a second portion (upper portion) disposed on the first portion and coupled to the first portion,
the control machine (A) being fixed to the first portion.
Kamiide does not teach:
the regeneration resistor being fixed to the second portion.
However, Pfaff teaches:
A stacker crane, and
A braking resistor (4) and energy store (5), fixed to the second (upper) portion of the mast (1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the regeneration resistor of Kamiide above the control machine as taught by Pfaff with a reasonable expectation of success to save space in the traveling direction of the carrier section. The arrangement of the components of Kamiide creates a large footprint of the carrier with the control machine on one side of the masts and the drive and regeneration resistor extending in the opposite direction on the other side of the masts. Pfaff teaches a stacked configuration that minimizes space requirements along the traveling direction.
Regarding claim 2, Kamiide further teaches:
comprising a plurality of the masts (11, 12) disposed so as to be adjacent to each other when seen in plan view from a direction perpendicular to a floor surface (figure 1).
Kamiide does not teach:
the control machine and the regeneration resistor being disposed between the plurality of the masts.
However, Pfaff teaches:
the control machine (including 3) and the regeneration resistor (4, 5) being disposed between the plurality of the masts (side walls of tower 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the control machine and regeneration resistor of Kamiide between the masts as taught by Pfaff to further reduce the footprint of the carrier to allow for movement in narrow locations. On page 5, paragraph 9, lines 1-4 Pfaff notes, “Other components required in the control cabinet, such as connection devices, in particular I/O terminals, at least one controller and/or one supply module, in particular a 24V supply module, can preferably also be arranged in the interior of the tower 1 and the mobile part can therefore be made shorter in the direction of movement.” Containing the components within the tower/between vertical sidewalls or masts allows the carrier or mobile part to be shorter in the movement direction.
Regarding claim 3, Pfaff further teaches:
wherein the control machine and the regeneration resistor are, between the plurality of the masts, fixed to one of the plurality of the masts (page 3, last two lines through page 4, line 3, “In an advantageous embodiment, the switch cabinet has two side wall parts, in particular side wall parts designed as sheet metal parts, of the switch cabinet, each of the side wall parts being connected to the frame, another side wall part, in particular a side wall part designed as a sheet metal part, of the control cabinet is connected to the two side wall parts”).
Regarding claim 4, Kamiide further teaches:
further comprising a housing (10) accommodating the regeneration resistor, the housing having a vent (17) causing an outside of the housing and an inside of the housing to communicate with each other.
Regarding claim 5, Kamiide further teaches:
a driver box (exterior housing of A, figure 1) including a raising and lowering control machine and a travel control machine (“The stacker crane is operated by a control panel A which receives an operation signal from a switch provided on the operation panel C, a card reader, or an upper CPU. This is done by driving an elevating drive motor, a traveling drive motor, etc., by operating an electromagnetic switch or the like therein.” Page 2, paragraph [0006], lines 11-15 of the translation previously provided by the Exmainer, the control components for operating the raising and lowering motor and the travel motor are within the control panel A, housed in a driver box).
And the combination of Kamiide and Pfaff teaches:
the driver box being fixed to the mast below the regeneration resistor (in the combination of Kamiide and Pfaff the control machine components and correlated housing/box are located below the regeneration resistor as shown in figure 3 of Pfaff, control cabinet 3 is below braking resistor 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the argument on page 5 of the Remarks that there is no part of the “control machine” A of Kamiide that appears to be fixed to any portion of the mast 12, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. A is fixed to the mast 12 at least by the common base as shown in figure 1.
Regarding the argument on page 5 that the opposing sides of the tower of Pfaff do not constitute two masts according to the clear meaning of the term, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Applicant’s figure 1, the two masts (20A, 20B) are shown as opposing, connected sides of a common lifting tower. The carriage 30 is a singular lifting component shared between the two masts. Pfaff likewise teaches opposing, connected sides of a common lifting tower with a singular lifting component (figure 4 shows more of the framework having multiple vertical posts connected to each other). There is no apparent discernible distinction between the dual masts of Applicant’s invention as claimed and the dual masts of Pfaff under broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding the argument on page 6 of the Remarks that the braking resistor of Pfaff is shown in figure 1 as being outside of the masts, figure 3 of Pfaff shows the configuration having the components mounted within the tower/between the masts.
New claim 5 is found to be unpatentable over Kamiide in view of Pfaff as outlined above.
Conclusion
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 MICHELLE M MUDWILDER whose telephone number is (571)272-6068. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 am - 7:30 pm.
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, ROBERT HODGE can be reached at (571)272-2097. 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.
/M.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights