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 .
Claims 1-12 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 1, 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is over 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-12 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.
The term “high density” in claims 1-12 in the first line of each claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high density” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to what high density means as there is no scale so anything can be high density.
Claim 10 contains the trademark/trade name Torx. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe star or six point pattern of a screw or bolt head and can be called hexalobular internal and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taiwan Patent No. TWI819400 to Chen et al. in view of Chinese Patent No. CN110654760 to Huang et al. (A machine translation of the documents are enclosed with this action).
Regarding claim 1, the Chen patent teaches a high-density intelligent storage system, comprising: rack assemblies; and a storage and retrieval robot 201 configured to transfer goods, and a number of tote transport mechanisms 3, each tote transport mechanism 3 being in communication with the pair of racks arranged side-by-side for delivering a tote between the two racks; and the storage and retrieval robot 201 is drivingly connected to the tote transport mechanism (see Figs. 2 and 3), and the storage and retrieval robot and the tote transport mechanism 3 are capable of delivering the tote to each other. See translation describing embodiment 1.
However, the Chen patent lacks a specific teaching that the item being moved is a tote.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the subject invention to modify the Chen patent to have totes on the rack and the robot, as this is a type of good and totes are known to be used to transport goods and the rack of Chen is capable of having totes on them as a matter of design choice.
The Chen patent lacks a specific teaching of a plurality of rack assemblies being provided, and the plurality of rack assemblies being arranged in parallel; wherein an aisle is provided on at least one side of each rack assembly for allowing for movement of the storage and retrieval robot.
The Huang patent teaches a plurality of rack assemblies being provided, and the plurality of rack assemblies being arranged in parallel; wherein an aisle is provided on at least one side of each rack assembly for allowing for movement of the storage and retrieval robot 4. See Fig. 6.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the subject invention to modify the Chen patent to have a plurality of rack assemblies being provided, and the plurality of rack assemblies being arranged in parallel; wherein an aisle is provided on at least one side of each rack assembly for allowing for movement of the storage and retrieval robot, as taught by Huang as this would be combining known prior art elements using known methods to provide the predictable result of a warehouse with multiple rack rows and this configuration is known in the art to be used in storage facilities.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chinese Patent No. CN116923938 to Chen et al. teaches a robot that moves between racks in an aisle.
Chinese Patent No. CN118212020 to Liu et al. teaches a robot that moves along a rack.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN HOLMES whose telephone number is (571)272-3448. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Jacob S Scott can be reached at 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 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.
/JUSTIN HOLMES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights