DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 1 and 13-23 are currently being examined. Claims 2-12 were canceled in a first Preliminary Amendment. New claims 13-23 were added in a second Preliminary Amendment
The Specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01
Foreign Priority
The Applicant claims priority to Foreign Application EP 223208343.6.
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.
Claims 1and 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor, or the applicant regards as the invention.
With respect to Claim 1, the phrase in a limitation that reads "can be stored” implies that there is an option as to whether the containers are or are not actually stored. Therefore, it is unclear whether the language following the phrase is intended to be regarded as part of the invention or not. As a result, claim 1 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter being regarded as the invention.
With respect to Claim 1, the phrase in a limitation that reads " designed to drive a driverless vehicle” does not clearly state that the driverless vehicle is actually being driven. Therefore, it is unclear whether the language following the phrase is intended to be regarded as part of the invention or not. As a result, claim 1 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter being regarded as the invention.
With respect to Claim 1, the phrase in a limitation that reads “in order to be able to switch” does not clearly state that the switch in direction is or has been made. As a result, claim 1 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter being regarded as the invention.
With respect to Claim 1, the phrase in a limitation that reads “designed and equipped to automatically drive” does not clearly state that the driverless vehicle is or is not actually driving. As a result, claim 1 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter being regarded as the invention.
With respect to Claim 1, the phrase in a limitation that reads "can be moved” implies that there is an option as to whether the driverless vehicle is or is not at the shaft opening. Therefore, it is unclear whether the language following the phrase is intended to be regarded as part of the invention or not. As a result, claim 1 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter being regarded as the invention.
With respect to Claim 1, the phrase in a limitation that reads “a lifting apparatus (9) is designed to lift and lower at least one stack” does not clearly state that the lifting apparatus is or is not actually lifting a stack. As a result, claim 1 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter being regarded as the invention.
With respect to Claim 1, the phrase in a limitation that reads “which is designed to inject a drive torque” does not clearly state that the drive coupling is or is not actually injecting a torque. As a result, claim 1 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter being regarded as the invention.
With respect to Claim 1, the phrase in a limitation that reads “drive mating coupling is designed for automatic coupling” does not clearly state that the drive coupling is or is not actually mating with the drive couplings of the lifting apparatuses. As a result, claim 1 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter being regarded as the invention.
With respect to Claim 15, the phrase in a limitation that reads “charging station is designed and equipped to charge” does not clearly state that the charging station is or is not actually charging the electrical energy repository. As a result, claim 15 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter being regarded as the invention.
With respect to Claim 15, the phrase in a limitation that reads " electrical energy can be emitted” implies that there is an option as to whether the electrical energy is or is not actually being emitted. As a result, claim 15 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter being regarded as the invention.
With respect to Claim 15, the phrase in a limitation that reads " the driverless vehicle can be electrically coupled” implies that there is an option as to whether the driverless vehicle is or is not actually being coupled. As a result, claim 15 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter being regarded as the invention.
With respect to Claim 16, the phrase in a limitation that reads " the lifting drive is designed and equipped to draw electrical energy” implies that there is an option as to whether the lifting drive is or is not actually drawing energy directly. As a result, claim 16 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter being regarded as the invention.
With respect to Claim 17, the phrase in a limitation that reads " the platform (18) can be lifted within the storage shaft” implies that there is an option as to whether the platforms is or is not actually being lifted within the storage shaft. As a result, claim 17 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter being regarded as the invention.
With respect to Claim 17, the phrase in a limitation that reads " and/or can be lowered within the storage shaft” implies that there is an option as to whether the platforms is or is not actually being lowered to lower containers within the storage shaft. As a result, claim 17 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter being regarded as the invention.
With respect to Claim 18, the phrase in a limitation that reads " auxiliary lifting spindle can be driven together” implies that there is an option as to whether the auxiliary spindle is or is not actually being driven together with the lifting spindle. As a result, claim 18 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter being regarded as the invention.
With respect to Claim 18, the phrase in a limitation that reads “a spindle thread which is designed to engage support portions” does not clearly state that the spindle thread is or is not actually engaging the support portions. As a result, claim 18 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter being regarded as the invention.
With respect to Claim 18, the phrase in a limitation that reads “the auxiliary lifting spindle (17a) can be lifted and/or lowered individually” implies that there is an option as to whether the auxiliary spindle is or is not actually being lowered. As a result, claim 18 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter being regarded as the invention.
With respect to Claim 19, the phrase in a limitation that reads "the auxiliary lifting spindles (17a) can be released from engagement” implies that there is an option as to whether the auxiliary spindle are or are not actually being released from engagement with the spindle threads. As a result, claim 19 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter being regarded as the invention.
With respect to Claim 20, the phrase in a limitation that reads “arranged close to the center of the quadrant” that are subjective limitations. The specification does not provide any standard for determining the scope of “close to the center”. Some objective standard must be provided to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the scope of the claim. A claim that requires the exercise of subjective judgments without restriction renders the claim indefinite. In re Musgrave, 431 F.2d 882, 893 (CCPA 1970)
With respect to Claim 21, the phrase in a limitation that reads "one support arm (16) which is designed to receive” does not imply that the support arm is or is not actually receiving a container. As a result, claim 21 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter being regarded as the invention.
With respect to Claim 21, the phrase in a limitation that reads " in order to be able to transport them” does not imply that the driverless vehicle is or is not actually receiving a container to transport. As a result, claim 21 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter being regarded as the invention.
With respect to Claim 22, the phrase “in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
With respect to Claim 22, the phrase in a limitation that reads "can be moved” implies that there is an option as to whether the driverless vehicle is or is not at the upper shaft opening. Therefore, it is unclear whether the language following the phrase is intended to be regarded as part of the invention or not. As a result, claim 22 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter being regarded as the invention.
With respect to Claim 22, the phrase in a limitation that reads " which can be driven by a lifting drive (11) of the driverless vehicle” implies that there is an option as to whether the drive mating coupling is or is not being driven by the driverless vehicle. Therefore, it is unclear whether the language following the phrase is intended to be regarded as part of the invention or not. As a result, claim 22 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter being regarded as the invention.
With respect to Claim 22, the phrase in a limitation that reads " in order to be able to optionally lift or lower a container” does not clearly state that the lifting apparatus is actually lifting or lowering a container. As a result, claim 22 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter being regarded as the invention.
Claims 13, 14, and 23 are rejected as being dependent upon rejected base claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure because the prior art references contain subject matter that relates to one or more of Applicant’s claim limitations. Any hypothetical prior art rejection based on these references would require impermissible hindsight reasoning.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS RANDAZZO whose telephone number is (313)446-4903. The examiner can normally be reached between 9:00am to 4:00pm EST Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Jacob Scott, can be reached on 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 the Patent Center. Unpublished application information in the Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in the Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about the 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.
/THOMAS RANDAZZO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655 August 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights