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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “a rotational movement” as it recites in claim 18, “The method according to claim 16, wherein the movement of the shuttle from its travel position includes a rotational movement.” as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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.
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 8 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 8 recites the limitation "The shuttle elevator according to claim 7, wherein the locking mechanism locks the shuttle, a displacement unit of the shuttle, and the partial rail." In lines 17-18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “…the partial rail” in the claim limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10, 15-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lindblom (EP3872004A1, Cited on IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Lindblom teaches a shuttle elevator (Fig.1, 20) for a shelf system (10), the shuttle elevator (20) comprising:
at least one shuttle (34);
at least two levels for storing load carriers (Fig. 1, 10, and it can be seen in Fig. 9 and 10); and
a displacement unit (Fig. 1, 42).
Regarding claim 2, Lindblom teaches all the limitations of claim 1. It also teaches wherein the displacement unit (42) is set up to displace the shuttle (34) horizontally to a direction of travel of the shuttle (it can be seen in fig. 9).
Regarding claim 3, Lindblom teaches all the limitations of claim 1. It also teaches wherein the shuttle elevator (20) is set up to lift the shuttle from its running rail (it can be seen in fig. 2, and 4, see ¶0018).
Regarding claim 4, Lindblom teaches all the limitations of claim 1. It also teaches wherein the shuttle elevator (20) is set up to lift a partial rail (52) of a running rail (60) of the shuttle (34) with the shuttle arranged on this partial rail (it can be seen in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Lindblom teaches all the limitations of claim 5. It also teaches wherein the displacement unit (42) is set up to displace the partial rail (52) of the running rail (60) with the shuttle (34) arranged on the partial rail (52, it can be seen in Fig. Fig. 2, 9, 10, ¶0018).
Regarding claim 6, Lindblom teaches all the limitations of claim 1. It also teaches wherein the displacement unit (42) comprises a lifting device (40, ¶0018).
Regarding claim 7, Lindblom teaches all the limitations of claim 1. It also teaches wherein the displacement unit (42) comprises at least one locking mechanism (38).
Regarding claim 8, Lindblom teaches all the limitations of claim 7. It also teaches wherein the locking mechanism (38) locks the shuttle (34), a displacement unit of the shuttle (76), and the partial rail (52). (¶0018, and 0022. Note” since locking mechanism 38 and partial rail 52 is on displacement unit 42 of shuttle elevator 20, as per BRI, it is supporting 34, 76 and 52 all together).
Regarding claim 9, Lindblom teaches a shelf system (10) comprising the shuttle elevator (20) according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 10, Lindblom teaches all the limitations of claim 9. It also teaches wherein the shelf system (10) comprises a running rail (60) with a removable partial rail (52, it can be seen in fig. 9 and 10).
Regarding claim 15, Lindblom teaches all the limitations of claim 9. It also teaches wherein the shuttle elevator (20) is arranged within a shelf for storing load carriers of the shelf system (it can be seen in fig. 9 and as per BRI, during loading or unloading process 20 is arranged within shelf).
Regarding claim 16, Lindblom teaches a method for moving a shuttle (34) with a shuttle elevator (20) from one level to a further level of a shelf system (10), the method comprising:
displacing the shuttle (34) from a travel position (it can be seen in Fig. 9);
displacing the shuttle to a further level of the shelf system (¶0008, ¶0023); and
displacing the shuttle to the travel position (It can be seen in fig. 9, ¶0008).
Regarding claim 17, Lindblom teaches all the limitations of claim 16. It also teaches wherein the movement of the shuttle (34) from its travel position includes a translational movement (it can be seen in Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 18, Lindblom teaches all the limitations of claim 16. It also teaches wherein the movement of the shuttle (34) from its travel position includes a rotational movement (it can be seen in fig. 10, See ¶0023).
Regarding claim 19, Lindblom teaches all the limitations of claim 16. It also teaches wherein the movement of the shuttle (34) from its travel position comprises two translational movements (Shuttle elevator moves shuttle from running rail 60 to partial rail 52, and moves shuttle to different level or rotate it about 90 degrees considered as a two-translation movements) carried out substantially perpendicular to each other (¶0008, ¶0023, both movements are perpendicular to each other).
Regarding claim 20, Lindblom teaches all the limitations of claim 16. It also teaches wherein the movement of the shuttle (34) to a further level of the shelf system (10) is carried out within the shelf of the shelf system (it can be seen in fig. 9, shuttle elevator 20 moves shuttle from one level to another, and Shuttle 34 always moves in shelf of shelf system).
Regarding claim 21, Lindblom teaches all the limitations of claim 16. It also teaches wherein the movement of the shuttle (34) into the travel position of the shuttle corresponds to the movements from the travel position in reverse order (When shuttle needs to change the level it will travel in opposite direction of direction shown in fig. 9 or vice-versa).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindblom (EP3872004A1) in view of Neu et al. (US 10351343 B2).
Regarding claim 11, Lindblom teaches all the limitations of claim 10. It explicitly fails to teaches wherein the running rail comprises fasteners to mechanically connect the partial rail to the running rail.
Neu et al. teaches wherein the running rail (Fig. 3 and 4, 112) comprises fasteners (Fig.3, 300, and Fig. 4, 210) to mechanically connect the partial rail (302) to the running rail (112).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified Lindblom by incorporating wherein the running rail comprises fasteners to mechanically connect the partial rail to the running rail in view of Neu et al. in order to arrange rails directly adjacent to one another to form a part of guide rail (column 4, lines 63-65).
Regarding claim 12, combination of Lindblom and Neu et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 11. Lindblom explicitly fails to teaches wherein the fasteners are passively designed.
Neu et al. teaches wherein the fasteners (Fig. 4, 210) are passively designed (press-fit in column 5, lines 1-2 is interpreted as a passively designed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified Lindblom by incorporating wherein the fasteners are passively designed in view of Neu et al. in order to avoid the development of noise when shuttle travels on the rails. (column 5, lines 25-28).
Regarding claim 13, combination of Lindblom and Neu et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 12 except for wherein the fasteners are actively designed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify the fasteners of Lindblom and Neu et al. such that the fasteners are actively designed. The examiner takes Official Notice of the art equivalence of wherein the fasteners are actively designed, such as actuator-operated locking mechanism, solenoid actuated fasteners, or motor-driven locking devices are well known in art. The selection and implementation of any of these known equivalents to provide automated locking and unlocking without human intervention would have been a predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions and would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindblom (EP3872004A1) in view of Balanchi (US 10267508 B2).
Regarding claim 14, Lindblom teaches all the limitations of claim 9. It explicitly fails to teaches wherein the running rail includes a plug connection to electrically connect the partial rail to the running rail.
Balanchi teaches wherein the running rail (It can be seen in Fig. 2) includes a plug (Fig. 4, 11) connection to electrically connect the partial rail (Fig. 4, 3) to the running rail (It can be seen in Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified Lindblom by incorporating wherein the running rail includes a plug connection to electrically connect the partial rail to the running rail in view of Balanchi in order to provide conductive contact in between running rail and partial rail (column 2, lines 55-57).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other cited prior art shows a shuttle elevator which moves shuttle from one level to another level of storage facility. Specially, Cohen et al. (US 20210009350 A1) teaches use of actively and passively designed fastener see [¶0081].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAIMIN G PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM to 5:00 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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 517-272-7097. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/SAUL RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3652
/JAIMIN G PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights