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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/27/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "movement machinery" in claims 1 and 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim limitation “movement machinery ” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Paragraph [0049] of applicant's specification discloses using different movement machinery however does not go into detail on the structure of the machinery. Machinery to move the cells is also disclosed in paragraph [0005], [0054], [0059], and [0065] however does not go into sufficient detail to understand the structure. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 1-18 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites “being divided into a lattice structure of uniformly sized cells, said lattice structure having at least one empty cell so that rows and columns of cells can be shuffled, using movement machinery, in a sliding box puzzle manner, to position a desired one of said cells to or away from said one or more input/output ports” the claims refers to the spaces of the lattice as cells and at least one cell must be empty however rows and columns of cells can be shuffled. It is unclear how an empty cell can be shuffled. For the purposes of examination subdivisions of the lattice will be interpreted as spaces that may contain cells.
Regarding Claim 8, the claim recites “wherein said subcell lattice structure has at least one empty cell so that rows and columns of subcells within the lattice structure can be shuffled, using movement machinery, in a sliding box puzzle manner to position a desired one of said cells to a desired location inside or out of the lattice structure.” The subdivision of the subcells is referred to as “one of said cells” however “cells” are also used to refer to division housing a subcell therefore it is unclear what is “one of said cells” is referring to. For the purposes of examination this claim will be interpreted as the “one of said cell” in this claim refers to a subdivision of the subcell.
Regarding Claim 13, the claim recites “one cell of said frames, smaller frames and miniscule frames” there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what said frames, smaller frames and minuscule frames refers to.
Regarding Claim 15, the claim recites “the secured cells or subcells” there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether secured cells or subcells are different from cells or subcells.
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) 1-2, 5-7, 9, 14, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PEREZ et al. (US 20220242668 A1) in view of GRAVELLE et al. (US 20180148259 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Perez et al. teaches A method for distributing parcels, comprising:
a. providing a storage unit (200) having one or more input/output ports ([0051]; final module) and being divided into a lattice structure of uniformly sized cells (see Fig. 1), said lattice structure having at least one empty cell (Fig. 1) so that rows and columns of cells can be shuffled ([0247], [0248]), using movement machinery (410,420), in a sliding box puzzle manner (The apparatus shuffles the containers and has at least one empty cell allowing the shuffling, therefore it is moving in a sliding box puzzle manner), to position a desired one of said cells to or away from said one or more input/output ports ([0238]);
b. providing within at least one of said cells a structure having a plurality of subcells (cells between 301 and 302; see Fig. 5);
c. loading parcels into at least some of said cells and some of said subcells ([0076], [0116]); system displaces storage items therefore the storage items must have been loaded);
e. when said one parcel is stored within one of said cells, shuffling the cells of the storage unit to move said one or more requested parcels to be proximate to said one or more input/output ports of the storage unit([0245]-[0249]), keeping track of the locations of the cells of the storage unit throughout said shuffling ([0124]); [0246]; [0247]), and when said one parcel is stored within one of said subcells, shuffling the cells of the storage unit to move said cell containing said plurality of subcells containing said one parcel and positioning said subcell containing said one parcel to be proximate to said one or more input/output ports of the storage unit ([250; 251]); and
f. providing access to said one or more requested parcels for retrieval of said one or more requested parcels via said one or more input/output ports ([0116]).
Perez et al. does not explicitly teach d. receiving a request to retrieve one of said parcels; however, Perez does teach an initialization system and central controller that a user may use to select a container to be moved ([0125]).
Gravelle et al. teaches a storage unit (24) comprising a lattice structure of uniformly sized cells (Fig. 5) and receiving a request to retrieve one of a number of parcels ([0065]); and signaling the vehicle to retrieve the product from its storage location ([0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Perez et al. with a step of receiving a request to retrieve one of a number of parcels of Gravelle et al. so a user can access an item from the storage unit.
Regarding Claim 2, Perez et al. as modified above teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said loading parcels involves inserting them into the cells of the storage unit via the one or more input-output ports (Perez et al. [0116]).
Regarding Claim 5, Perez et al. as modified above teaches the method of claim 1 further comprising subdividing at least one subcells at least one additional time to create subdivided subcells of various dimensions which may hold smaller parcels of various dimensions (Perez et al. see Fig. 5 the column is a subcell and the further divided locations are the subdivisions; [0117]).
Regarding Claim 6, Perez et al. as modified above teaches the method of claim 1, wherein providing within at least one of said cells a structure having a plurality of subcells involves dividing the space within the cell into one or more walled subcells (Perez et al. 300; see Fig. 1) that are compartments of the cell (Perez et al. Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 7 Perez et al. the method of claim 1, wherein at least one of said cells contains a frame (Perez et al. A1 see annotated Fig. 5 below), a subcell lattice structure of uniformly sized subcells in which parcels can be placed (Perez et al. see annotated Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 9, Perez et al. teaches the method of claim 7, wherein a cell of the frame holds at least one smaller frame (Perez et al. A2 see annotated Fig. 5 below) with similar properties as the frame but is smaller in size (Perez et al. the frame can hold objects similar to the frame and therefore has similar properties).
PNG
media_image1.png
357
567
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 5
Regarding Claim 14, Perez et al. as modified above teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising securing the cells or subcells (Perez et al. the cells are secured to the frame; Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 18, Perez et al. as modified above teaches the method of claim 1, wherein shuffling the cells of the storage unit comprises raising or lowering an elevation of the one or more requested parcels (Perez et al. [0128]) to allow the one or more requested parcels to be at the correct elevation to interface with a desired cell or subcell (Perez et al. [0251]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PEREZ et al. (US 20220242668 A1) in view of GRAVELLE et al. (US 20180148259 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of GIL et al. (US 20230351315 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Perez et al. as modified above teaches the method of claim 2,
Perez et al. does not teach wherein said loading parcels further involves shuffling the cells of the storage unit each time a parcel has been inserted into a cell of the storage unit via the one or more input/output ports to bring an empty cell for the next parcel to be loaded.
Gil et al. teaches a storage unit (100) holding a plurality of cells (2308; Fig. 23A) and loading parcels further involves shuffling the cells of the storage unit each time a parcel has been inserted into a cell of the storage unit ([0101]) via a one or more input/output ports (port where container is loaded on rail) to bring an empty cell for the next parcel to be loaded ([0101]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Perez et al. with a step of further shuffling the cells of the storage unit each time a parcel has been inserted into a cell of the storage unit via a one or more input/output port to bring an empty cell for the next parcel to be loaded of Gil et al. for the purpose of being able to speed up the process of loading the cells.
Claim(s) 12-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PEREZ et al. (US 20220242668 A1) in view of GRAVELLE et al. (US 20180148259 A1) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of GOLDBERG et al. (US 20190051090 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Perez et al. as modified above teaches the method of claim 6,
Perez et al. as modified above does not teach wherein parcels of various dimensions are stored within the cells and subcells of various sized frames however Perez et al. does teach that subcells can have variations ([0117]).
Goldberg et al. teaches a cell (106) with a plurality of subcells (702, 704) with moveable walls (730a, 730b, 720a, 720b) wherein parcels of various dimensions (200) are stored within the cells and subcells of various sized frames (frames of 722b, 730a see Fig. 7B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cells of Perez et al. with the movable walls of Goldberg et al. so storage products of multiple different sizes can be held. Regarding Claim 13, Perez et al. as modified above teaches the method of claim 6,
Perez et al. as modified above does not teach wherein at least one cell of said frames, smaller frames and miniscule frames have been subdivided to contain at least two walled subcells of various dimensions that are compartments of the cell in which parcels of various dimensions can be placed.
Goldberg et al. teaches a cell (106) with a plurality of subcells (702, 704) with moveable walls (730a, 730b, 720a, 720b) wherein at least one cell of said frames, smaller frames and miniscule frames have been subdivided to contain at least two walled subcells of various dimensions (Fig. 7B) that are compartments (Fig. 7B) of the cell in which parcels of various dimensions can be placed ([0118]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cells of Perez et al. with the movable walls of Goldberg et al. so storage products of multiple different sizes can be held.
Regarding Claim 15, Perez et al. as modified above teaches the method of claim 13,
Perez et al. as modified above does not teach wherein the secured cells or subcells are lockers.
Goldberg et al. teaches a cell (106) with a plurality of subcells (702, 704) wherein the secured cells or subcells are lockers (102; [0107]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the subcell of Perez et al. with the lockers of Goldberg et al. for the purpose of being able to lock items in a locker reducing the risk of losing the items.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PEREZ et al. (US 20220242668 A1) in view of GRAVELLE et al. (US 20180148259 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of ZHOU (CN112607278A).
Regarding Claim 16, Perez et al. teaches the method of claim 1,
Perez et al. does not teach wherein padding within the cells or subcells is provided to prevent damage to objects during movement of objects within the cells or subcells.
Zhou teaches an automatic goods transfer system with a moving container (3) wherein padding (cushion of 3) within the container is provided to prevent damage to objects during movement of objects.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the subcells of Perez et al. with the padding of Zhou so damage is prevented during movement of objects within the cells or subcells for the purpose of reducing the risk of damaging or breaking the items.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PEREZ et al. (US 20220242668 A1) in view of GRAVELLE et al. (US 20180148259 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of LI (CN105501461A)
Regarding Claim 17, Perez et al. as modified above teaches the method of claim 1,
Perez et al. does not teach wherein said movement machinery comprises a base platform in one of said cells of said lattice structure, said base platform having two sets of motorized omni wheels for moving a container in two directions in and out of said one of said cells.
Li teaches platform having movement machinery (22, 16) wherein said movement machinery comprises a base platform (base of 21), said base platform having two sets of motorized omni wheels (22 see Fig. 4) for moving a container in two directions in and out ([0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the movement machinery of Perez et al. with the omni wheels of Li for the purpose of being able to transport containers in and out of the cells.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Faller (US 5707199 A).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADARSH NEUPANE whose telephone number is (571)272-8816. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00am-5:00pm.
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.
/A.N./ Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/KAITLIN S JOERGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights