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 Status
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Specification
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.
Examiner’s Note
The examiner would welcome an interview to clarify any of the various rejections seen below in order to expedite prosecution of the instant application. We note that applicant’s paragraph [0024] of the instant specification regarding the purposes and functionality of its curved stoppers in modulating airflow may support amendments that could be used to overcome certain rejections in this office action, though no guarantee of allowability is implied by this observation.
Claim Interpretation
We acknowledge applicant’s lexicographic definitions of various physical relational terms in paragraphs [0018]-[0022] of the instant specification.
Because it is evidently a structure of importance to applicant’s invention, being a feature that distinguishes applicant’s AMHS of claim 1 from a generic shelving system, we take special note of applicant’s “airflow rectification structure” of claims 1, 5, and 8. “Airflow rectification” is a standard term of art denoting the modulation of airflow for the purpose of smoothing and straightening air distribution, stabilizing air pressure, and reducing turbulence, as applicant notes in [0023] of the instant specification. Structures meant to rectify airflow generally comprise a distribution mechanism such as a honeycomb or perforated plate or openings combined with some air or pressure source such as a fan. Many AMHS provide some means of air rectification as part of airflow filtering and exhaust measures.
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.
Claims 1 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fukushima, et al., US 2023/0163006 (hereinafter Fukushima).
Regarding claim 1,
Fukushima discloses:
An automated material handling system (totality of fig. 1 including transport space S1 and associated structures), comprising:
a stocking apparatus (system of fig. 1) comprising a plurality of shelving units (placing supports 15: fig. 1);
an airflow rectification structure (upper floor 81: fig. 1; floor pierced with airflow holes: [0031]) overlying one or more of the plurality of shelving units;
and a vacuum unit (exhaust fan 41, underfloor space 93: fig. 1, [0032]) under one or more of the plurality of shelving units, wherein the airflow rectification structure is configured to conduct air along one or more flow paths to the vacuum unit. As explained in [0032], air is exhausted through 93 using fan 41, and so 41 and 93 constitute a vacuum unit.
Regarding claim 5,
Fukushima discloses the limitations of claim 1 and also:
comprising: a fan unit (blower 85: fig. 1) overlying the airflow rectification structure, wherein the fan unit is configured to emit an air stream to the airflow rectification structure.
Regarding claim 6,
Fukushima discloses the limitations of claim 5 and also:
wherein: the fan unit comprises a filter (unshown filter: [0032]) configured to filter air particles from air to produce filtered air, wherein the air stream comprises the filtered air.
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.
Claims 2-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushima in view of Wicks, Edward A., US 5,718,627 (hereinafter Wicks).
Regarding claim 2,
Fukushima discloses the limitations of claim 1 but not:
comprising: an air particulate sensor configured to measure an air particulate metric associated with a stocking environment of the automated material handling system, wherein operation of the vacuum unit is based upon the air particulate metric. Fukushima’s system appears to filter its air continuously and does not operate its gas exhaust portion (vacuum unit) in response to particulate detection.
Wicks, an invention in the field of elevator smoke evacuation, teaches:
comprising: an air particulate sensor (36: fig. 1) configured to measure an air particulate metric associated with a stocking environment of the automated material handling system, wherein operation of the vacuum unit is based upon the air particulate metric.Wicks teaches in C2/L41-67 that an air quality sensor such as a smoke detector (air particulate sensor) is used to trigger the operation of a blower and exhaust vent in order to purify the air of an elevator car. In combination with Fukushima, we employ the sensor of Wicks and the method of Wicks but all the other structures of Fukushima, thus yielding a system in which Fukushima’s vacuum unit is activated in response to the detection of air particulates. All smoke detectors function on the basis of an air particulate metric, namely the measurable degree to which the detector’s sensors detect air particulates and to which some threshold is employed as the basis for activating an alarm or detection event.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system and method of Fukushima, comprising: an air particulate sensor configured to measure an air particulate metric associated with a stocking environment of the automated material handling system, wherein operation of the vacuum unit is based upon the air particulate metric, as taught by Wicks, because the continuous operation of a vacuum unit is more expensive in terms of electricity and maintenance over time than intermittent operation, and with the goal of maintaining air quality in a space, intermittent operation will achieve the same quality with lower cost.
Regarding claim 3,
Fukushima in view of Wicks teaches the limitations of claim 2 and also:
wherein: the vacuum unit is activated to intake air in response to the air particulate metric meeting a first air particulate threshold. We consider that the use of a smoke detector to trigger an air purification must involve an air particulate threshold as the basic, normal, and universal function of a smoke detector is to activate in response to detecting some threshold of air particulates.
Regarding claim 4,
Fukushima in view of Wicks teaches the limitations of claim 3 and also:
after the vacuum unit is activated, the vacuum unit is deactivated to cease intake of air in response to an updated value of the air particulate metric not meeting a second air particulate threshold. As Wicks discloses in C2/L41-67 that its air purification system is only active when its smoke detector detects a sufficient quantity of smoke (air particulates), and since Wicks’ system purifies the air, it follows that when the amount of smoke in the air no longer triggers its smoke detector (i.e. fails to meet an air particulate threshold) it will no longer trigger its exhaust system. In combination with Fukushima, this means that Fukushima’s vacuum unit would be deactivated.
Regarding claim 7,
Fukushima discloses the limitations of claim 5 but not:
an air particulate sensor configured to measure an air particulate metric associated with a stocking environment of the automated material handling system, wherein a flow rate of the air stream is controlled based upon the air particulate metric. Fukushima does not disclose an air particulate sensor or associated metric.
Wicks, an invention in the field of elevator smoke evacuation, teaches:
an air particulate sensor (36: fig. 1) configured to measure an air particulate metric associated with a stocking environment of the automated material handling system, wherein a flow rate of the air stream is controlled based upon the air particulate metric.Wicks teaches in C2/L41-67 that an air quality sensor such as a smoke detector (air particulate sensor) is used to trigger the operation of a blower and exhaust vent in order to purify the air of an elevator car. In combination with Fukushima, we employ the sensor of Wicks and the method of Wicks but all the other structures of Fukushima. Thus Wicks teaches control of flow rate of air based on an air particulate metric.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Fukushima, with an air particulate sensor configured to measure an air particulate metric associated with a stocking environment of the automated material handling system, wherein a flow rate of the air stream is controlled based upon the air particulate metric, as taught by Wicks, because in a clean-room environment such as a wafer storage system it is highly desirable to remove contaminants from the air and reduce any potential for contaminating the substrates, and plainly triggering increased airflow in response to detecting such contaminants will have that effect.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushima in view of Mayer, Donald K., US 4,441,333 (hereinafter Mayer).
Fukushima discloses the limitations of claim 1, but not:
wherein: the airflow rectification structure comprises a honeycomb arrangement. Fukushima does not disclose the internal details of its air rectification structure. However, Fukushima’s disclosure of perforated holes for its structure is compatible with a honeycomb arrangement and indeed may actually comprise a honeycomb.
Mayer, an invention in the field of refrigeration units, teaches:
wherein: the airflow rectification structure comprises a honeycomb arrangement (honeycomb assembly 32: fig. 3).Mayer teaches this arrangement in C2/L41-45.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system and method of Fukushima, wherein: the airflow rectification structure comprises a honeycomb arrangement, as taught by Mayer, because a honeycomb arrangement for an air rectification structure is one of the most common and widespread arrangements and has been known in the art for many years (Mayer was published in 1987).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushima in view of Abe, et al., US 2018/0076077 (hereinafter Abe).
Regarding claim 9,
Fukushima discloses the limitations of claim 1 but not:
wherein: a first shelving unit of the plurality of shelving units comprises a first stopper; and the first stopper is curved. Fukushima does not disclose small structural details of its shelving units such as stoppers. However, in failing to disclose such details, Fukushima is at least compatible with the claimed stoppers.
Abe, an invention in the same field (and from the same assignee) as Fukushima, teaches:
wherein: a first shelving unit of the plurality of shelving units comprises a first stopper (stopper 11: fig. 3); and the first stopper is curved.As seen in fig. 3, the upper surfaces of Abe’s stoppers are curved. In combination with Fukushima, which discloses an extremely similar overall system structure, Abe’s stoppers would work with Fukushima’s placing supports (shelving units). In this combination we use all structures from Fukushima and invoke Abe solely for its stoppers, filling in details not disclosed by Fukushima.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Fukushima, wherein: a first shelving unit of the plurality of shelving units comprises a first stopper; and the first stopper is curved, as taught by Abe, because firstly stoppers are a commonplace safety measure in storage systems featuring shelves, meant both to secure articles on the shelves to prevent damage and also to fix their positions to enable automation. Curved surfaces are commonplace design features that reduce the likelihood of damage caused by sharp-edged structures.
Claims 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushima in view of Grundy, David A., US 5,944,602 (hereinafter Grundy).
Regarding claim 10,
Fukushima in view of Abe teaches the limitations of claim 9, and also:
wherein: the first shelving unit comprises: a second stopper (11: fig. 3);Abe discloses up to 6 projecting members 11 (stoppers) in fig. 3.
However, Fukushima and Abe do not teach:
and a gate assembly configured to control a state of a stocking path between the first stopper and the second stopper. A stocking path can be traced between at least two of Abe’s stoppers but without the gate assembly.
Grundy, an invention in the field of cleanroom cabinets, teaches:
and a gate assembly (doors 62: figs. 1-2) configured to control a state of a stocking path between the first stopper and the second stopper.In combination with Fukushima’s other structures, Grundy’s doors would control stocking access to shelves 37 (fig. 3), with that path being between the outermost of Abe’s projecting members 11 (first and second stoppers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Fukushima and Abe, with a gate assembly configured to control a state of a stocking path between the first stopper and the second stopper, as taught by Grundy, because such a gate assembly protects the contents of a storage system from damage caused by external elements or operators and also acts as a stopper in itself to prevent shelf contents from shifting or falling from the storage location. Moreover, myriad examples are well known of gate assemblies protecting access to shelves in AMHS and related arts.
Regarding claim 11,
Fukushima in view of Abe and Grundy teaches the limitations of claim 10, and also:
wherein: the gate assembly is configured to open the stocking path in response to receiving a stocking operation message indicative of a stocking operation. Grundy teaches in C16/L32-40 that its doors are connected to controllable swing-arms in order to facilitate automation and that the doors open and close automatically. Both the systems of Fukushima and Grundy are intended to perform stocking operations, and as such operations can only be performed when the door is open, the automatic operation of the system will necessarily cause the door to open in response to such a message. Claim 40 also teaches the open and closed positions either giving or preventing access to its storage cavities.
Regarding claim 12,
Fukushima in view of Abe and Grundy teaches the limitations of claim 11, and also:
wherein: the gate assembly is configured to close the stocking path in response to completion of the stocking operation. Grundy teaches both opening and closing in C16/L32-40 and claim 40.
Regarding claim 13,
Fukushima in view of Abe and Grundy teaches the limitations of claim 11, and also:
comprising: a stocking vehicle (Fukushima, stacker crane 3: fig. 1) configured to perform the stocking operation.
Regarding claim 14,
Fukushima in view of Abe and Grundy teaches the limitations of claim 13, and also:
wherein the stocking operation comprises: a put operation comprising transferring, via the stocking path, a wafer storage device from a load support component of the stocking vehicle to a first storage location over the first shelving unit. Both Fukushima ([0033]) and Abe ([0019]) teach wafer containers or FOUPs stored on shelves, transported by stacker cranes. As Fukushima and Abe’s storage devices are shelves, the storage locations must necessarily be over the shelves. All storage systems must necessarily be able to both store and retrieve (“get” and “put”) articles.
Regarding claim 15,
Fukushima in view of Abe and Grundy teaches the limitations of claim 13, and also:
wherein the stocking operation comprises: a get operation comprising transferring, via the stocking path, a wafer storage device from a first storage location over the first shelving unit to a load support component of the stocking vehicle (transfer device 19 of stacker crane 2: fig. 1). Both Fukushima ([0033]) and Abe ([0019]) teach wafer containers or FOUPs stored on shelves, transported by stacker cranes. As Fukushima and Abe’s storage devices are shelves, the storage locations must necessarily be over the shelves. All storage systems must necessarily be able to both store and retrieve (“get” and “put”) articles.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushima in view of Abe and Grundy and further in view of Taniguchi Hiroto, JP 2000016520 (hereinafter Taniguchi).
Fukushima in view of Abe and Grundy teaches the limitations of claim 13, but not:
comprising: a windshield coupled to the stocking vehicle. The references do not teach a windshield.
Taniguchi, an invention in the field of ASRS, teaches:
comprising: a windshield (windshield 22: fig. 1) coupled to the stocking vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Fukushima, Abe, and Grundy, comprising: a windshield coupled to the stocking vehicle, as taught by Taniguchi, because as Taniguchi explains in [0004]-[0006], a windshield on the carriage in an ASRS of a similar type to applicant’s not only straightens airflow around the carriage but prevents contamination of stored articles (i.e. the substrates being stored in cleanroom conditions).
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushima in view of Abe and Grundy and further in view of Wilby, Robert John, US 2011/0015773 (hereinafter Wilby).
Regarding claim 17,
Fukushima discloses:
An automated material handling system, comprising:
a stocking apparatus (system of fig. 1) comprising a first shelving unit (placement support 15: fig. 1)
and a stocking vehicle (stacker crane 3: fig. 1) configured to perform a stocking operation associated with transferring a wafer storage device at least one of to or from a first storage location over the first shelving unit,
However, Fukushima does not disclose:
[the shelving unit] comprising a first stopper, a second stopper,Fukushima does not disclose small structural details of its shelving units such as stoppers. However, in failing to disclose such details, Fukushima is at least compatible with the claimed stoppers.
and a gate assembly configured to control a state of a stocking path between the first stopper and the second stopper;
wherein: the gate assembly is configured to open the stocking path in response to receiving a stocking operation message indicative of the stocking operation;
and the gate assembly is configured to close the stocking path to inhibit airflow through the stocking path in response to completion of the stocking operation. Regarding the above three limitations, Fukushima does not disclose the claimed gate assembly.
Abe, an invention in the same field (and from the same assignee) as Fukushima, teaches:
comprising a first stopper, a second stopper, (projecting portions 11: fig. 3) In combination with Fukushima, which discloses an extremely similar overall system structure, Abe’s stoppers would work with Fukushima’s placing supports (shelving units). In this combination we use all structures from Fukushima and invoke Abe solely for its stoppers, filling in details not disclosed by Fukushima.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Fukushima, comprising a first stopper, a second stopper, as taught by Abe, because stoppers are a commonplace safety measure in storage systems featuring shelves, meant both to secure articles on the shelves to prevent damage and also to fix their positions to enable automation.
Grundy, an invention in the field of cleanroom cabinets, teaches:
and a gate assembly (doors 62: figs. 1-2) configured to control a state of a stocking path between the first stopper and the second stopper;
wherein: the gate assembly is configured to open the stocking path in response to receiving a stocking operation message indicative of the stocking operation;In combination with Fukushima’s other structures, Grundy’s doors would control stocking access to shelves 37 (fig. 3), with that path being between the outermost of Abe’s projecting members 11 (first and second stoppers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Fukushima with a gate assembly configured to control a state of a stocking path between the first stopper and the second stopper; wherein: the gate assembly is configured to open the stocking path in response to receiving a stocking operation message indicative of the stocking operation, as taught by Grundy, because such a gate assembly protects the contents of a storage system from damage caused by external elements or operators and also acts as a stopper in itself to prevent shelf contents from shifting or falling from the storage location. Moreover, myriad examples are well known of gate assemblies protecting access to shelves in AMHS and related arts.
Regarding the limitation:
and the gate assembly is configured to close the stocking path to inhibit airflow through the stocking path in response to completion of the stocking operation.Grundy does not explicitly teach that its gate is used to inhibit airflow when closed. Though this is plainly a consequence of the gate being closed, we rely on a third teaching reference to provide this explicit motivation.
Wilby, an invention in the field of wafer monitoring, teaches:
and the gate assembly is configured to close the stocking path to inhibit airflow through the stocking path in response to completion of the stocking operation.Wilby teaches in [0072] that its door 14 is intended to seal atmosphere from wafers in a storage device. We do not make use of Wilby’s structures so much as its motivation for using a sealable door, which Grundy does not teach as a reason to gate its wafer storage structures. In combination with Fukushima’s general structure and Grundy’s stocking-path-blocking gate, Wilby’s teaching makes explicit the fact that the gate will inhibit airflow through the stocking path. Of course, Grundy’s gate would have inhibited airflow without this teaching.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Fukushima and Grundy such that the gate assembly is configured to close the stocking path to inhibit airflow through the stocking path in response to completion of the stocking operation, as taught by Wilby, because in the clean room and sometimes gas-evacuated conditions of semiconductor storage taught by all these references it is desirable to reduce possibly contaminating airflow as much as possible during stocking operations so as to protect substrates from dust and other contaminants.
Regarding claim 18,
Fukushima in view of Abe, Grundy and Wilby teaches the limitations of claim 17 and also:
wherein at least one of: the first stopper is curved; or the second stopper is curved. As seen in its fig. 3, Abe’s projecting members 11 (stoppers) have curved upper portions.
Regarding claim 19,
Fukushima discloses:
A method, comprising:
initiating a stocking operation associated with transferring a wafer storage device at least one of to or from a first storage location over a first shelving unit of a stocking apparatus (system of fig. 1),Fukushima discloses the activity of placing wafer storage containers in [0033] as a method step. As it teaches storage unit shelves, the storage locations must be over the shelves by virtue of the nature of shelves.
performing the stocking operation via the stocking path;The claimed stocking path is the path by which a delivery vehicle such as a stacking crane stores or retrieves wafers and wafer container to and from a storage location.
However, Fukushima does not disclose:
wherein the first shelving unit comprises a first stopper, a second stopper, [and a gate assembly;]
and a gate assembly;
in response to initiating the stocking operation, triggering the gate assembly to open a stocking path between the first stopper and the second stopper
and in response to completion of the stocking operation, triggering the gate assembly to close the stocking path to inhibit airflow through the stocking path. Regarding the above limitations, Fukushima does not disclose a gate assembly.
Abe, an invention in the same field (and from the same assignee) as Fukushima, teaches:
wherein the first shelving unit comprises a first stopper, a second stopper (projecting members 11: fig. 3), [and a gate assembly;]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Fukushima, wherein the first shelving unit comprises a first stopper, a second stopper, as taught by Abe, because stoppers on shelves are extremely common safety measures employed in storage systems in order to retain objects in place on the shelves and to secure their positions, thus preventing damage and enabling various forms of automation.
Grundy, an invention in the field of cleanroom cabinets, teaches:
and a gate assembly (doors 62: figs. 1-2);
in response to initiating the stocking operation, triggering the gate assembly to open a stocking path between the first stopper and the second stopper;In combination with Fukushima’s other structures, Grundy’s doors would control stocking access to shelves 37 (fig. 3), with that path being between the outermost of Fukushima’s projecting members 11 (first and second stoppers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the method of Fukushima wherein in response to initiating the stocking operation, triggering the gate assembly to open a stocking path between the first stopper and the second stopper, as taught by Grundy, because such a gate assembly protects the contents of a storage system from damage caused by external elements or operators and also acts as a stopper in itself to prevent shelf contents from shifting or falling from the storage location. Moreover, myriad examples are well known of gate assemblies protecting access to shelves in AMHS and related arts.
Regarding the limitation:
and in response to completion of the stocking operation, triggering the gate assembly to close the stocking path to inhibit airflow through the stocking path.Grundy does not explicitly teach that its gates or doors are used to inhibit airflow when closed. Though this is plainly a consequence of a gate or door being closed, we rely on a third teaching reference to provide this explicit motivation.
Wilby, an invention in the field of wafer monitoring, teaches:
and in response to completion of the stocking operation, triggering the gate assembly to close the stocking path to inhibit airflow through the stocking path.Wilby teaches in [0072] that its door 14 is intended to seal atmosphere from wafers in a storage device. We do not make use of Wilby’s structures so much as its motivation for using a door, which Grundy does not teach as a reason to gate its wafer storage structures. In combination with Fukushima’s general structure and Grundy’s stocking-path-blocking gate, Wilby’s teaching makes explicit the fact that the gate will inhibit airflow through the stocking path. Of course, Grundy’s gate would have inhibited airflow without this teaching.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the method of Fukushima and Grundy such that in response to completion of the stocking operation, triggering the gate assembly to close the stocking path to inhibit airflow through the stocking path, as taught by Wilby, because in the clean room and sometimes gas-evacuated conditions of semiconductor storage taught by all these references it is desirable to reduce possibly contaminating airflow as much as possible during stocking operations so as to protect substrates from dust and other contaminants.
Regarding claim 20,
Fukushima in view of Abe, Grundy and Wilby teaches the limitations of claim 19 and also:
wherein performing the stocking operation comprises at least one of: performing, using a stocking vehicle, a put operation comprising transferring, via the stocking path, the wafer storage device from a load support component of the stocking vehicle to the first storage location over the first shelving unit; or performing, using the stocking vehicle, a get operation comprising transferring, via the stocking path, the wafer storage device from the first storage location over the first shelving unit to the load support component of the stocking vehicle.As noted above in the rejection of parent claim 19, Fukushima discloses placing containers on shelves in [0033]. Moreover, given the AMHS storage system, shelves, and stocking vehicle taught by Fukushima and Abe, the stocking operations of storage and retrieval (“put” and “get”) are conventional and indeed universal. All industrial storage and material handling systems must be able to both store and retrieve articles for obvious reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2019/0218033 teaches an AMHS storage system with gated shelves similar to applicant’s except that its gates are manually operated instead of automatic. US 2019/0144205 teaches an AMHS storage system with stoppers but without the gating device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS whose telephone number is (703)756-1828. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0830-1700.
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, 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.
/ERNESTO A SUAREZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3655A
/L.R.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights