The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claim 1, line 9, it is not clear what is meant by nor is there a clear antecedent basis for the recitation “adjacent sub grids” (i.e., while “a plurality of sub grids” has been recited, there is no indication which, if any, of them would be “adjacent”).
Also in claim 1, line 10, it is not clear if the recitation “bin handling vehicles” is intended to refer to the previously recited “one or more bin handling vehicles”.
Further still in claim 1, lines 10-11, the recitation “the track system of one sub grid to the track system of another sub grid” is unclear and lack proper antecedent basis, as even though a plurality of sub grids has been recited, only one track system has been recited; thus there is no indication that different sub grids would necessarily each have their own track systems.
Independent claim 17 is indefinite for substantially the same issues in lines 8-10.
Also in claim 17, line 11, it is not clear if the recitation “a bin handling vehicle” is intended to refer to the previously recited “one or more bin handling vehicles”;
in lines 11 and 13, it is not clear if the recitations “a first sub grid” and “a second sub grid” are intended to refer to the previously recited “plurality of sub grids”;
and line 14, it is not clear if the recitation “an opening” is intended to refer to the previously recited “one or more openings”, and the recitation “the firewall separating the first ... and the second sub grid” lacks clear and proper antecedent basis; i.e., while “adjacent sub grids” (which is indefinite per se, as noted above) have been recited as being separated by a firewall, there is no indication that the first and second sub grids are adjacent, and therefore a firewall separating such sub grids is not necessarily the previously recited firewall.
Throughout the dependent claims, similar recitations, including but not necessarily limited to “the fire door”, “the opening”, “the openings”, and “the sprinkler system” (claim 16), lack clear and proper antecedent basis.
Further, in claim 7, line 2, it is not clear relative to what “a lower level” refers.
It is also noted regarding claim 16, that in addition to “the sprinkler system” (singular) lacking proper antecedent basis, claim 15 (from which claim 16 depends) recites “sprinkler systems” (plural) as merely one of a list of possible alternative fire prevention and/or firefighting apparatuses. The scope of claim 16 is therefore unclear, because a sprinkler system is not necessarily a required component of the system.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by De Angelis et al (US 10,202,240, or corresponding US 2016/0376103).
De Angelis shows in at least the Fig. 12 embodiment an automated grid storage and retrieval system 1200 comprising:
a framework structure 1202 comprising a track system (not shown explicitly in Fig. 12 but analogous to tracks 710 in Fig. 7; also see Fig. 11) upon which one or more bin handling vehicles 708/709 are operatable;
a plurality of storage columns (not explicitly identified but readily apparent in at least Fig. 7) each being arranged to store a respective stack of storage bins 400, wherein the track system and the plurality of storage columns are arranged to allow the one or more bin handling vehicles to collect and return storage bins to and from the plurality of storage columns, and
wherein the automated grid storage and retrieval system is separated into a plurality of sub grids (Fig. 12; “partitions 1203 divide enclosure 1201 into zones”, i.e., sub grids), adjacent sub grids being separated from each other by a “firewall” 1203, as broadly recited, (i.e., in Fig. 11, analogous paneling 1101 “may be made of metal clad foam insulation”) having one or more openings (not explicitly identified but doors 1104-1106 are clearly provided to close openings in the firewall; see col. 7:32-59 and col. 8:27-30) sized to allow bin handling vehicles to pass from the track system of one sub grid to the track system of another sub grid.
Note that at least one zone (sub grid) may contain a hypoxic environment in which fire cannot be sustained, while others may not. As such, the partitions are considered to inherently comprise firewalls. Also note that the zones (sub grids) may comprise multiple rack aisles on a single rack level, single rack aisles on multiple rack levels, or a combination of both.
Re claim 2, each opening in the firewall comprises a “fire door”, as broadly recited (i.e., col. 7:41-43).
Re claim 3, the fire door is “arranged”, as broadly and functionally recited, to close off the opening in the firewall in the event of a fire (i.e., at least doors 1105 and 1106 clearly could be closed in the event of a fire; the claim does not require the door to automatically close in response to detection of a fire). Note that these doors can be controlled by a computer to open and close as needed (col. 7:48-59).
Re claim 4, the fire door 1106 is a slidable door.
Re claim 7, the firewall allows the one or more bin handling vehicles to transport the storage bins, at “a lower level”, as broadly and indefinitely claimed (i.e., any level other than the top level), of the automated grid storage and retrieval system, through the one or more openings in the firewall to an access station 707 (Fig. 7).
Re claim 8, the adjacent sub grids are co-joined by one or more bridges in the form of sections of track that pass through the one or more openings in the firewall (i.e., compare Figs. 7 and 12; there clearly are sections of track that form a bridge between adjacent sub grids).
Claims 10-11 are treated in the same manner as analogous claims 2-3 above.
Re claim 13, the adjacent sub grids are separated from each other by the firewall and an aisle 703.
Re claim 14, the system further comprises active fire prevention and/or firefighting apparatus (i.e., the above-noted hypoxic environment).
Re claim 15, the active fire prevention and/or firefighting apparatus comprises at least [one of emergency lighting, heat detectors, sprinkler systems, or] an apparatus for introducing inert gas (col. 6:36-40).
Re claim 17, De Angelis discloses a method of operating an automated grid storage and retrieval system, the automated grid storage and retrieval system comprising a framework structure comprising a track system upon which one or more bin handling vehicles operate, and a plurality of storage columns each storing a respective stack of storage bins, wherein the track system and plurality of storage columns are arranged to allow the one or more bin handling vehicles to collect and return storage bins to and from the plurality of storage columns, wherein the automated grid storage and retrieval system is separated into a plurality of sub grids, adjacent sub grids being separated from each other by a firewall having one or more openings to allow bin handling vehicles to pass from the track system of one sub grid to the track system of another sub grid, as noted above with respect to claim 1, the method comprising:
controlling a bin handling vehicle to retrieve a target storage bin from a first sub grid; and controlling the bin handling vehicle to transport the target storage bin to a second sub grid via an opening in the firewall separating the first sub grid and the second sub grid, as described in col. 5:35-49.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Angelis et al in view of Lemming (EP 1306507).
De Angelis does not show the slidable fire door to be suspended from a door rail and held in an open position by a releasable latch or magnet, said door rail arranged at an angle whereby the fire door will slide from an open position to a closed position under the influence of gravity upon release of the latch or magnet. However, De Angelis discloses that other types of doors may be used (col. 7:34-36)
Lemming teaches a slidable fire door 28 suspended from a door rail 29 and held in an open position by a releasable latch or magnet 32, wherein the door rail is arranged at an angle (at least in the Figs. 20 and 22 embodiments) such that the fire door slides from an open position to a closed position under the influence of gravity upon release of the latch or magnet. The arrangement reduces costs by eliminating the need to produce and stock a large variety of spare parts (pars. [0005], [0007]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of De Angelis by configuring the sliding fire door to be suspended from a door rail and held in an open position by a releasable latch or magnet, with the door rail arranged at an angle whereby the fire door would slide from an open position to a closed position under the influence of gravity upon release of the latch or magnet, as shown by Lemming, as this would simply be the substitution of one known type of sliding fire door for another in the same field of endeavor, the use of which in the apparatus of De Angelis would have neither required undue experimentation nor produced unexpected results, and would reduce costs by eliminating the need to produce and stock a large variety of spare parts.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Angelis et al in view of Ashelin et al (US 2013/0189471).
De Angelis does not state that the fire door comprises a flexible fireproof material.
Ashelin shows fire resistant insulated flexible wall panels that can be used as a roll up fire door (Fig. 7) similar to door 1106 of De Angelis. Such panels and doors are used to divide different portions of a building that may have different environmental conditions (e.g., temperatures) from each other while providing sturdiness, fire resistance, light weight, flexibility and thermal resistance (pars. [0014] – [0016]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of De Angelis by configuring the fire door with a flexible fireproof material, as taught by Ashelin, to provide sturdiness, fire resistance, light weight, flexibility and thermal resistance.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Angelis et al.
De Angelis does not show that the one or more bridges are arranged with multiple tracks, such that a plurality of bin handling vehicles can pass simultaneously through one of the openings in the firewall.
However, as noted above, at least some of the sub grids comprise multiple rack aisles on a single rack level, as can be seen in Fig. 12. While De Angelis shows each of such rack aisles having an individual door, a single door that provided access to all (or at least more than one) of the aisles at the same time could alternatively be used, similar to the way in which some multi-bay garages have individual doors for each bay while others have a single door that opens all (or at least more than one) of the bays simultaneously. Such a single door provides simplicity, fewer moving parts, lower cost and potentially less maintenance. The bridge(s) serving such sub grids would therefore comprise multiple tracks, such that a plurality of bin handling vehicles could pass simultaneously through one of the openings in the firewall.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of De Angelis by utilizing a single door that provided access to at least two rack aisles of at least one sub grid, such that at least one of the bridges was arranged with multiple tracks so that a plurality of bin handling vehicles could pass simultaneously through one of the openings in the firewall, as the examiner takes Official Notice that providing a single door for multiple aisles is an alternate equivalent to providing an individual door for each aisle, and would be simpler, less expensive, and easier to maintain.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Angelis et al in view of Frase (EP 0560191).
De Angelis discloses that the paneling 1101 may be sealed to maintain the environment within each zone (col. 7:21-23), but does not explicitly state that the fire door comprises sealing means for sealing against the section of track that passes through the opening in the firewall.
Frase discloses a fire door 4 with a seal 20 to conform to the space between the door and the frame 21.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of De Angelis by configuring the fire door to comprise sealing means for sealing against the opening in the firewall, as suggested by Frase, to prevent undesirable environmental conditions from moving from one side of the firewall to the other. Since a section of the tracks pass through the opening, such a sealing means would obviously seal against such tracks.
Claim 16 (as best understood in light of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth above in par. 3) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Angelis et al in view of Clarke et al (US 2018/0044110).
To whatever if any extent the limitation may be given patentable weight in light of the above-noted rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112, De Angelis does not disclose that the active fire prevention and/or firefighting apparatus comprises a sprinkler system configured to selectively activate in one of the plurality of sub grids in which fire is detected.
However, as noted above, De Angelis does state that in some embodiments, only some of the zones (sub grids) may contain a hypoxic environment in which fire cannot be sustained, while other zones may not. De Angelis further discloses that it may be preferable that all zones are hypoxic to avoid the need for fire suppression equipment (col. 8:66 to col. 9:5). This suggests that in the embodiments in which only some of the zones are hypoxic, the zones that are not hypoxic would require some sort of fire suppression equipment.
Clarke shows an automated grid storage and retrieval system 1 comprising: a framework structure 14 comprising a track system 22, a plurality of storage columns, each column being arranged to store a respective stack 12 of storage bins 10 beneath the track system (Fig. 1), and a plurality of bin handling vehicles 30/32 that operate on the track system for collecting and returning the storage bins to and from the storage columns, wherein the automated grid storage and retrieval system is arranged to be installed within a warehouse space into a plurality of sub grids (Figs. 5b, 7, 9, 10b), wherein adjacent sub grids are separated from each other by a fire wall 19 or 42 extending between adjacent sub-grids, and wherein an active fire prevention and/or firefighting apparatus comprises a sprinkler system configured to selectively activate in one of the plurality of sub grids in which fire is detected (col. 6:22-33).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of De Angelis by providing, in an embodiment in which at least some of the zones (sub grids) did not contain an hypoxic environment, an active fire prevention and/or firefighting apparatus in such sub grids comprised of a sprinkler system configured to selectively activate in one of the plurality of sub grids in which fire was detected, as taught by Clarke, to effectively control a fire in one sub grid without damaging the contents of other sub grids.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Angelis et al in view of Zollinger et al (US 3,880,299).
De Angelis does not explicitly disclose the method to further comprise detecting a fire in a warehouse space in which the automated grid storage and retrieval system is installed, and, responsive to detecting the fire, controlling a fire door in the opening in the firewall separating the first sub grid and the second sub grid to close.
However, as noted above, De Angelis does disclose that the doors can be controlled by a computer to open and close as needed (col. 7:48-59). At least in an embodiment in which one or more of the sub grids did not contain a hypoxic environment, detection of a fire in such sub grids would obviously constitute the need to close the door(s) thereof.
Zollinger discloses a substantially similar warehousing (storage) system wherein fire doors may close off openings in a fire barrier 30, which separates the storage space into zones, in the event of an emergency (i.e., a fire), wherein the openings normally allow a material handling vehicle 200 to pass through (col. 5:52 to col. 6:2).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the process of De Angelis, at least in an embodiment in which one or more of the sub grids did not contain an hypoxic environment, by detecting a fire in a warehouse space in which the automated grid storage and retrieval system was installed, and, responsive to detecting the fire, controlling a fire door in the opening in the firewall separating the first sub grid and the second sub grid to close, as taught by Zollinger, to prevent the spread of fire outside the affected zone.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Angelis et al in view of Zollinger et al, as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Lemming.
This rejection utilizes the same obviousness rationale set forth above in par. 8 with respect to claim 5
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Angelis et al in view of Zollinger et al, as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Clarke et al.
This rejection utilizes the same obviousness rationale set forth above in par. 12 with respect to claim 16.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Holland teaches the use of fire doors in a warehouse environment similar to Zollinger et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Keenan whose telephone number is (571)272-6925. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at 571-270-5565. 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.
/James Keenan/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3652
8/19/26
Prosecution Insights