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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 20-39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,179,807. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claims are a mere broadening of the previously allowed claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 20, 23, 24, 26, 31, 35, 37, and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lindbo et al. US 2019/0375588.
Lindbo discloses a storage grid structure for a storage system, comprising:
(Re claim 20) “a plurality of storage columns for storing storage containers in vertical stacks, the plurality of storage columns being defined by vertical column profiles interconnected at their upper ends by top rails forming a horizontal top rail grid upon which container handling vehicles may transport storage containers” (306, 20a, 20b, 21, 300 figure 3). “at least one transfer column” (507 figure 8). “a horizontal transfer passageway” (507 figure 8) the ground under the column. “wherein the at least one transfer column extends downwards from the horizontal top rail grid to the horizontal transfer passageway” (507 figure 8). “wherein the horizontal transfer passageway extends from a first position below the at least one transfer column to an opening in an external side of the storage grid structure and allows one or more container transfer vehicles to receive a respective storage container from the at least one transfer column at the first position and exit the storage grid structure, with the respective storage container, through the opening” (406,507,508 figure 8).
(Re claim 23) “the at least one transfer column provides a transfer port arranged at an upper level of the horizontal transfer passageway, the transfer port arranged to allow vertical transfer of a storage container between the at least one transfer column and one of the one or more container transfer vehicles, and the upper level arranged at a height sufficient to allow a container transfer vehicle to travel within the horizontal transfer passageway when carrying a storage container” (400, 406 ,507, 508 figure 8, para 0059).
(Re claim 24) “a guidance system for guiding movement of the one or more container transfer vehicles” (para 0069, 0048).
(Re claim 26) “the guidance system is arranged to guide the one or more container transfer vehicles between the first position and a second position external to the storage grid structure” (para 0069, 400, 507 ,406 ,508 figure 8).
(Re claim 31) “the storage grid structure of claim 20; and the one or more container transfer vehicles” (508 figure 8).
(Re claim 35) “each of the one or more container transfer vehicles has a horizontal periphery allowing two container transfer vehicles to pass each other when below two adjacent transfer columns” (508, 507 figure 8).
(Re claim 37) “each of the one or more container transfer vehicles comprises a container carrier for carrying a storage container” (406, 508 figure 8).
Lindbo discloses a method of retrieving a storage container from storage grid structure for a storage system, the storage grid structure comprising:
(Re claim 39) “a plurality of storage columns for storing storage containers in vertical stacks, the plurality of storage columns being defined by vertical column profiles interconnected at their upper ends by top rails forming a horizontal top rail grid upon which container handling vehicles may transport storage containers” (306, 20a, 20b, 21, 300 figure 3). “at least one transfer column” (507 figure 8). “a horizontal transfer passageway” (507 figure 8) the ground under the column. “wherein the at least one transfer column extends downwards from the horizontal top rail grid to the horizontal transfer passageway (507 figure 8). “wherein the horizontal transfer passageway extends from a first position below the at least one transfer column to an opening in an external side of the storage grid structure and allows one or more container transfer vehicles to receive a respective storage container from the at least one transfer column at the first position and exit the storage grid structure, with the respective storage container, through the opening” (507, 508, 406 figure 8). “and the method comprising: retrieving a storage container from one of the plurality of storage columns by one of the container handling vehicles” (400, 406, 505 figure 8, para 0069). “moving the one of the container handling vehicles and the storage container to one of the at least one transfer column” (400, 507 figure 8). “lowering the storage container to a container transfer vehicle arranged in the horizontal transfer passageway at a position below the one of the at least one transfer column” (400, 507, 508, 406 figure 8). “moving the container transfer vehicle and the storage container to a position external to the storage grid structure” (406, 508 figure 8).
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) 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindbo in view of Young US 3,779,403.
Lindbo discloses the system as rejected above.
(Re claim 21) Lindbo does not disclose that the horizontal transfer passageway comprises multiple horizontal ceiling profiles supported by vertical support profiles, and the vertical column profiles of the at least one transfer column extend from the horizontal top rail grid to the multiple horizontal ceiling profiles.
Young teaches that the horizontal transfer passageway comprises multiple horizontal ceiling profiles supported by vertical support profiles, and the vertical column profiles of the at least one transfer column extend from the horizontal top rail grid to the multiple horizontal ceiling profiles (58 figure 2, 16).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Lindbo to include that the horizontal transfer passageway comprises multiple horizontal ceiling profiles supported by vertical support profiles, and the vertical column profiles of the at least one transfer column extend from the horizontal top rail grid to the multiple horizontal ceiling profiles because it provides extra structural support for the structure.
(Re claim 22) Lindbo does not disclose that the lower ends of the vertical column profiles of the at least one transfer column are supported by the multiple horizontal ceiling profiles.
Young teaches that the lower ends of the vertical column profiles of the at least one transfer column are supported by the multiple horizontal ceiling profiles (58 figure 2, 16).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Lindbo to include that the lower ends of the vertical column profiles of the at least one transfer column are supported by the multiple horizontal ceiling profiles because it provides a more open structure for navigating for the container transfer vehicles
Claim(s) 25, 27-29, 32-34, 36, and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindbo in view of Kimura US 2018/0215539.
Lindbo does not disclose that the guidance system is connected to a lower end of the at least one transfer column.
Kimura teaches that the guidance system is connected to a lower end of the at least one transfer column (‘retroreflective markers … legs’ para 0094).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Lindo to include that the guidance system is connected to a lower end of the at least one transfer column because it could help guide a driver or automated vehicle to the correct position while avoiding potential collisions.
(Re claim 27) Linbdo does not disclose that the guidance system comprises guiding elements arranged at or below a lower end of the at least one transfer column, the guiding elements arranged to guide the one or more container transfer vehicles to the first position directly below the at least one transfer column.
Kimura teaches that the guidance system comprises guiding elements arranged at or below a lower end of the at least one transfer point, the guiding elements arranged to guide the one or more container transfer vehicles to the first position directly below the at least one transfer point (‘retroreflective markers … legs’ para 0094, ‘center’ para 0069).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Lindbo to include that the guidance system comprises guiding elements arranged at or below a lower end of the at least one transfer column, the guiding elements arranged to guide the one or more container transfer vehicles to the first position directly below the at least one transfer column because it helps ensure that the container transfer vehicle can safely receive the container.
(Re claim 28) Lindbo does not disclose that the guidance system comprises guiding elements arranged to interact with the one or more container transfer vehicles and/or at least one sensor on each of the one or more container transfer vehicles, the guiding elements arranged on or at any of a transfer floor and the storage grid structure.
Kimura teaches that the guidance system comprises guiding elements arranged to interact with the one or more container transfer vehicles and/or at least one sensor on each of the one or more container transfer vehicles, the guiding elements arranged on or at any of a transfer floor and the storage grid structure (‘retroreflective markers … legs’, ‘distance sensor’ para 0094).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Lindbo to include that the guidance system comprises guiding elements arranged to interact with the one or more container transfer vehicles and/or at least one sensor on each of the one or more container transfer vehicles, the guiding elements arranged on or at any of a transfer floor and the storage grid structure because it could help guide a driver or automated vehicle to the correct position while avoiding potential collisions.
(Re claim 29) Lindbo does not disclose that the guiding elements comprise reflectors for reflecting a laser from a laser sensor on the one or more container transfer vehicles.
Kimura teaches that the guiding elements comprise reflectors for reflecting a laser from a laser sensor on the one or more container transfer vehicles (‘retroreflective markers’ para 0094, ‘laser distance sensor’ para 0069).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Lindbo to include that the guiding elements comprise reflectors for reflecting a laser from a laser sensor on the one or more container transfer vehicles because it is a well-known system for accurately measuring distances used in navigation.
(Re claim 32) Lindbo does not disclose that at least one sensor is disposed on each of the one or more container transfer vehicles for determining a position of the container transfer vehicle.
Kimura teaches that at least one sensor is disposed on each of the one or more container transfer vehicles for determining a position of the container transfer vehicle (para 0069).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Lindbo to include that at least one sensor is disposed on each of the one or more container transfer vehicles for determining a position of the container transfer vehicle because it could help guide a driver or automated vehicle to the correct position while avoiding potential collisions.
(Re claim 33) Lindbo does not disclose that the at least one sensor comprises a sensor for detecting magnetism, receiving/transmitting radio signals, receiving/transmitting laser or receiving optic images.
Kimura teaches that the at least one sensor comprises a sensor for detecting magnetism, receiving/transmitting radio signals, receiving/transmitting laser or receiving optic images (para 0068, 0069).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Lindbo to include teaches that the at least one sensor comprises a sensor for detecting magnetism, receiving/transmitting radio signals, receiving/transmitting laser or receiving optic images because they are all art recognized sensors for guiding vehicles.
(Re claim 34) Linbo does not disclose a guidance system for guiding movement of the one or more container transfer vehicles, wherein the guidance system comprises guiding elements arranged to interact with the at least one sensor of the one or more container transfer vehicles, the guiding elements arranged on or at any of a transfer floor and the storage grid structure.
Kimura teaches a guidance system for guiding movement of the one or more container transfer vehicles, wherein the guidance system comprises guiding elements arranged to interact with the at least one sensor of the one or more container transfer vehicles, the guiding elements arranged on or at any of a transfer floor and the storage grid structure (‘retroreflective markers’ para 0094, ‘laser distance sensor’ para 0069).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Lindbo to include a guidance system for guiding movement of the one or more container transfer vehicles, wherein the guidance system comprises guiding elements arranged to interact with the at least one sensor of the one or more container transfer vehicles, the guiding elements arranged on or at any of a transfer floor and the storage grid structure because it could help guide a driver or automated vehicle to the correct position while avoiding potential collisions.
(Re claim 36) Lindbo does not disclose that each of the one or more container transfer vehicles comprises a wheel arrangement for moving the container transfer vehicle in at least two perpendicular directions.
Kimura teaches that each of the one or more container transfer vehicles comprises a wheel arrangement for moving the container transfer vehicle in at least two perpendicular directions (203a,b figure 3, para 0063).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Lindbo to include that each of the one or more container transfer vehicles comprises a wheel arrangement for moving the container transfer vehicle in at least two perpendicular directions because it allows the system to maneuver the container within a smaller footprint.
Claim(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linbo in view of Wurman US 2007/0293978.
Lindbo discloses the system as rejected above.
Lindbo does not disclose that the container carrier is rotatably connected to a vehicle body of each of the one or more container transfer vehicles.
Wurman teaches that the container carrier is rotatably connected to a vehicle body of each of the one or more container transfer vehicles (110 figure 3A,B, para 0063).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Lindbo to include that the container carrier is rotatably connected to a vehicle body of each of the one or more container transfer vehicles because it allows the container to be easily realigned or shifted relative to the destination or other equipment.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linbo/Kimura in view of Toebes et al. US 2012/0189409.
Linbo/Kimura discloses the system as rejected above.
Lindbo does not disclose that the guiding elements comprise a pair of guide barriers, wherein the pair of guide barriers comprises a first section arranged below the at least one transfer column, in which section the guide barriers are parallel and separated by a distance such that a container transfer vehicle, and/or a storage container arranged on the container transfer vehicle, may be accommodated between the guide barriers of the first section.
Toebes teaches that the guiding elements comprise a pair of guide barriers, wherein the pair of guide barriers comprises a first section arranged below the at least one transfer column, in which section the guide barriers are parallel and separated by a distance such that a container transfer vehicle, and/or a storage container arranged on the container transfer vehicle, may be accommodated between the guide barriers of the first section (500, 501 figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Linbo/Kimura to include that the guiding elements comprise a pair of guide barriers, wherein the pair of guide barriers comprises a first section arranged below the at least one transfer column, in which section the guide barriers are parallel and separated by a distance such that a container transfer vehicle, and/or a storage container arranged because it helps guide the container transfer vehicle while preventing collisions with surrounding structures.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 4,088,232 and 3,559,822 discloses similar stacking systems with transferring the stacked goods to vehicles location below the stacking system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY R WAGGONER whose telephone number is (571)272-8204. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 5am-330pm.
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 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.
TIMOTHY R. WAGGONER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3655 B
/TIMOTHY R WAGGONER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights