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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 10-12 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 10 recites the limitation "wiring and installing the sensor system" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A sensor system is not mentioned anywhere else in the claims.
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) 1-7 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 10,730,696 to Moulin.
Regarding claim 1 Moulin discloses a rack operating device for a rack system for storage and retrieval, wherein the rack operating device has at least one mast extending in a vertical direction (see e.g., 703) and a lifting unit (103 etc. when engaged with track) movably arranged on the mast, wherein the mast is arranged directly on a rack upright of the rack system and/or is integrated into the rack upright (see figures 1, 6 and 12)).
Regarding claim 2 Moulin discloses the lifting unit is arranged on two masts so as to be movable in the vertical direction (see figures 1 and 10).
Regarding claim 3 Moulin discloses a drive device (103) configured to move the lifting unit via at least one suspension means (704) extending in the vertical direction on the mast.
Regarding claim 4 Moulin discloses the lifting unit is fixed to the mast with one degree of freedom in the vertical direction (when engaged with the track 103 can only move vertically).
Regarding claim 5 Moulin discloses the lifting unit carries at least one load-handling device that is moveable in a horizontal direction in the lifting unit (205 and col. 8 lines 20-25).
Regarding claim 6 Moulin discloses a racking system for storage and retrieval, comprising: a rack storage unit with at least one storage rack (see figure 1), wherein the at least one storage rack has one or more compartments for stored items in one rack level or in a plurality of rack levels arranged one above the other (see figure 1); and at least one rack operating device according to claim 1 (see above).
Regarding claim 7 Moulin discloses at least two masts are connected by at least one cross strut extending in the horizontal direction, wherein the cross strut simultaneously carries one or more rack uprights for one or more compartments of the racking system (see cross bars in figure 5).
Regarding claim 10 Moulin discloses a method for assembling a racking system according to claim 6, comprising: a) mounting of at least one mast when constructing the rack storage unit with at least one storage rack b) checking dimensional accuracy and/or maintenance of tolerances; c) mounting the lifting unit(s) of the racking system; and d) wiring and installing the sensor system (the construction and installation of the racks and system reads on the limitations of the claim).
Regarding claim 11 Moulin discloses mounting a drive device configured to move the lifting unit in a vertical direction (placing 704 and robots).
Regarding claim 12 Moulin discloses mounting a load-handling device that is moveable in a horizontal direction in the lifting unit (205 and col. 8 lines 20-25).
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 12,497,239 to Ning.
Regarding claim 1 Ning discloses a rack operating device for a rack system for storage and retrieval, wherein the rack operating device has at least one mast (21) extending in a vertical direction and a lifting unit (1/13) movably arranged on the mast, wherein the mast is arranged directly on a rack upright of the rack system and/or is integrated into the rack upright (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 2 Ning discloses the lifting unit is arranged on two masts so as to be movable in the vertical direction (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 3 Ning discloses a drive device configured to move the lifting unit via at least one suspension means extending in the vertical direction on the mast (13 and figure 2).
Regarding claim 4 Ning discloses the lifting unit is fixed to the mast with one degree of freedom in the vertical direction (when engaged with track 1 can only travel in vertical direction).
Regarding claim 5 Ning discloses the lifting unit carries at least one load-handling device that is moveable in a horizontal direction in the lifting unit (see 14 in figure 2).
Regarding claim 6 Ning discloses a racking system for storage and retrieval, comprising: a rack storage unit with at least one storage rack (figure 1), wherein the at least one storage rack has one or more compartments for stored items in one rack level or in a plurality of rack levels arranged one above the other; and at least one rack operating device according to claim 1 (see figure 1 and above).
Regarding claim 7 Ning discloses at least two masts are connected by at least one cross strut extending in the horizontal direction, wherein the cross strut simultaneously carries one or more rack uprights for one or more compartments of the racking system (see figure 1, horizontal members of rack).
Regarding claim 8 Ning discloses the mast heads of two masts arranged next to one another are connected to one another by a cross strut (see figure 1, uppermost horizontal member).
Regarding claim 10 Ning discloses a method for assembling a racking system according to claim 6, comprising: a) mounting of at least one mast when constructing the rack storage unit with at least one storage rack; b) checking dimensional accuracy and/or maintenance of tolerances; c) mounting the lifting unit(s) of the racking system; and d) wiring and installing the sensor system (the construction and installation of the racks and system reads on the limitations of the claim).
Regarding claim 11 Ning discloses mounting a drive device configured to move the lifting unit in a vertical direction (see 1 and 13).
Regarding claim 12 Ning discloses mounting a load-handling device that is moveable in a horizontal direction in the lifting unit (see 1 and 14 in figure 2).
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6 and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 12,662,311 to Vandemergel.
Regarding claim 1 Vandemergel discloses a rack operating device for a rack system for storage and retrieval, wherein the rack operating device has at least one mast extending in a vertical direction (100) and a lifting unit (14-17) movably arranged on the mast, wherein the mast is arranged directly on a rack upright of the rack system and/or is integrated into the rack upright.
Regarding claim 2 Vandemergel discloses the lifting unit is arranged on two masts so as to be movable in the vertical direction (see figure 3b).
Regarding claim 4 Vandemergel discloses the lifting unit is fixed to the mast with one degree of freedom in the vertical direction (only vertical travel is possible when engaged with 100).
Regarding claim 5 Vandemergel discloses the lifting unit carries at least one load-handling device that is moveable in a horizontal direction in the lifting unit (see figure 2).
Regarding claim 6 Vandemergel discloses a racking system for storage and retrieval, comprising: a rack storage unit with at least one storage rack (see figure 3b), wherein the at least one storage rack has one or more compartments for stored items in one rack level or in a plurality of rack levels arranged one above the other; and at least one rack operating device according to claim 1 (see figure 3b and above).
Regarding claim 9 Vandemergel discloses the rack storage unit has two opposing storage racks (see figure 3b), wherein a rack aisle is formed between the two opposing storage racks (see figure 3b), and wherein two masts of the two opposing storage racks opposite each other across the rack aisle are connected to each other by way of at least one bracing element (see figure 3b and 62).
Regarding claim 10 Vandemergel discloses a method for assembling a racking system according to claim 6, comprising: a) mounting of at least one mast when constructing the rack storage unit with at least one storage rack; b) checking dimensional accuracy and/or maintenance of tolerances; c) mounting the lifting unit(s) of the racking system; and d) wiring and installing the sensor system (the construction and installation of the racks and system reads on the limitations of the claim).
Regarding claim 11 Vandemergel discloses mounting a drive device configured to move the lifting unit in a vertical direction (providing vehicles 10).
Regarding claim 12 Vandemergel discloses mounting a load-handling device that is moveable in a horizontal direction in the lifting unit (providing vehicles 10).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional cited references show other masts system where the mast and/or lifting arrangement are incorporated into the rack structure.
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