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 1-20 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.
Each of claims 1, 12 and 20 include “the bay sensors configured to detect a presence of a food ingredient stored in the bays . . .” This renders the claims indefinite as it is not clear what is required by the language or how the sensors are determining the presence of a food ingredient, as compared to other items. The language has been interpreted to require a sensor which can detect whether a bay is occupied but not specifically whether food is present. In so far as the claim is intended to require the sensor to distinguish between food ingredients and other substances clarification is required.
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) 1-2, 6, 8-9, 11-13, 16, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2020/0024081 to Garden.
Regarding claim 1 (and 12) Garden discloses a storage system, comprising: a plurality of mobile racks (106), the racks each comprising a plurality of bays (108); and a frame (306), comprising: a plurality of docks (see figure 18 showing 2), each dock configured to guide one of the mobile racks to a storage position in the dock (see 326/328); a lock (332, 330) configured to selectively prevent movement of the one of the mobile racks in the storage position; and a plurality of bay sensors for each dock, the bay sensors configured to detect a presence of a food ingredient stored in the bays of the one of the mobile racks when the one of the mobile racks is in the storage position (see paras 0144-0145 discussing light curtains and proximity sensor for each dock). See discussion above regarding requirements of the sensors themselves.
Regarding claims 2 and 13 Garden discloses the frame comprises a visual indicator in communication with one of the bay sensors, the visual indicator configured to indicate a presence of the food ingredient (see paras 00146-147).
Regarding claims 6 and 16 Garden discloses at least one of the docks comprises a guide configured to align the mobile rack in a horizontal direction within the dock (320, 322.
Regarding claims 8 and 18 Garden discloses the frame comprises a rack sensor configured to determine a location of one or more of the mobile racks with respect to the frame (para 0144).
Regarding claims 9 Garden discloses each of the mobile racks comprises a machine-readable tag configured to identify the rack within a predetermined proximity distance of the rack (para 0098).
Regarding claim 11 Garden discloses each of the mobile racks are unpowered (see 106 and figure 13).
Regarding claim 20 Garden discloses a method of storing food ingredients, comprising: providing a plurality of mobile racks (106), the racks each comprising a plurality of bays (108); and detecting a location of one of the mobile racks in a storage position of a frame (306 and para 0144-145); wherein the frame comprises: a plurality of docks, each configured to guide the one of the mobile racks to the storage position in the dock; a lock configured to selectively prevent movement of the one of the mobile racks in the storage position; and a plurality of bay sensors for each dock, the bay sensors configured to detect a presence of a food ingredient stored in the bays of the mobile rack when the mobile rack is in the storage position (see discussion above regarding claims 1 and 12).
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(s) 3-5 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garden in view of US 2023/0302984 to Van Den Heuvel.
Regarding the claims Garden discloses a user interface (para 0147) but does not disclose the lock comprises an electromagnet, the user interface is configured to actuate the electromagnet, each of the mobile racks comprises a magnet configured to interface with the electromagnet.
Van Den Heuvel teaches a system including a lock comprises an electromagnet (para 0022) and each of the mobile racks comprises a magnet configured to interface with the electromagnet (para 0022) as an alternative to mechanical locking system (para 0022).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims to have modified Garden to include the lock comprises an electromagnet, the user interface is configured to actuate the electromagnet, each of the mobile racks comprises a magnet configured to interface with the electromagnet, as taught by Van Den Heuvel, because doing so merely entails substituting one known locking arrangement for another to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 7, 10, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garden in view of US 2024/0096824 to Borders.
Regarding the claims Garden discloses all the limitations of the claims except each of the plurality of bay sensors corresponds to a different respective bay of the mobile rack and the machine-readable tag comprises a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag and the rack sensor is configured to detect a presence of a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag carried by the one or more of the mobile racks.
Borders teaches a system including each of the plurality of bay sensors corresponds to a different respective bay of the mobile rack (para 0035, cabinet or centralized sensors for determining tray contents) and the machine-readable tag comprises a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag and the rack sensor is configured to detect a presence of a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag carried by the one or more of the mobile racks (para 0040) in order to monitor tray contents and maintain tray inventory (para 0040).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims to have modified Garden to include each of the plurality of bay sensors corresponds to a different respective bay of the mobile rack and the machine-readable tag comprises a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag and the rack sensor is configured to detect a presence of a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag carried by the one or more of the mobile racks, as taught by Borders, in order to monitor tray contents and maintain tray inventory.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional cited references show other similar system for tracking and handling racks and trays.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK C HAGEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5547. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:15-4:45 (PST).
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 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 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.
/MARK C HAGEMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights