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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 37 to 40 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.
As to claim 37, to what extend are the units “similar” (line 2)? (Lines 5-last of claim 25 describe one unit, so how much of lines 5-last relate to a second, if any at all?) Is it possible that all known boxes everywhere are similar in some regard, and thus at least one “similar” unit may not necessarily include anything listed in lines 5-last? What is Applicant’s intent?
As to claim 37, how many units is this claimed limited to? In particular, does “system further comprises several similar box-shaped units” mean the system is limited to at least 2 units (i.e. the unit of claim 25, and at least 1 more unit, where the 2 units are “similar”)? Are the “similar” units (at least 2) in addition to the unit of claim 25, for a total of at least 3 units? Are those “similar” units similar to each other regardless of the unit of claim 25?
As to claims 37-40, for reasons stated above, there is uncertainty as to how many units are in this claim due to the term “several”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 25,27,29,30,31,32,33,36,42,44,46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Clarke et al WO 2018/073392 (listed 1449 of 8/6/25).
Clark teaches (Figures 4,5) a measuring system for monitoring at least one atmospheric condition in an automated storage and retrieval system comprising a framework structure forming a three- dimensional storage grid structure for storing storage containers for storing items, wherein the measuring system comprises (Figure 5; pp 11,12):
at least one box-shaped measuring unit 10 for being stored in the three-dimensional storage grid structure, wherein the box-shaped measuring unit comprises:
measuring equipment ("data logging means 44 comprises sensors") for measuring the at least one atmospheric condition ("temperature, any gas emission) around the box-shaped measuring unit within the grid structure;
a transmitter (communication means 46) for transmitting measurement data to a computer system ("remote central data logging device);
at least one power source ("power supply means 42"); and
a data recorder ("logging means 44") for recording the measurement data.
The device is used in a method.
Cark system of Figure 5 does not state that the sensors measure that which surrounds the unit.
Clark teaches (p. 15) that the bins my employ sensors to “detect gas, smoke, fire or heat, the sensors activating sprinkler systems to put out any fire”.
As to claim 25,27,44, it would have been obvious to also measure the atmosphere around the unit because Clark teaches that such will allow the system to also test for fires.
As to claim 29, the unit has a lid (be it the unit above, or the lid that is on the top of a column).
As to claims 30,31,46, it would have been obvious to employ a gripper because Clark teaches (second para, p. 2) employing a robotic load hander that is configured to grip a container (unit) at any level of the stack. In addition, either the grippers are remotely controlled, or one of ordinary skill would recognize the benefit of such to avoid the danger of worker being on the tall storage unit.
As to claim 32, the lines in Figure 14 and connected to a lid, suggestive that the lid will support a unit.
As to claims 33,36, Figure 14 teaches use of power cable 80 that connects to the lid, and passes power into the unit 10, suggestive of employing such in Figure 5. The cable passes data between the unit 10 and vehicle 30, suggestive of employing such to pass data from the unit to an external unit.
As to claim 42, the vehicle 30 (Figure15) has a power supply inside (ABSTRACT), and one of ordinary skill recognizes the advantage of recharging batteries.
As to REMARKS, consider:
As to second paragraph of p. 7; means 44 measures that which is related to decomposing.
As to third paragraph of p. 7; Clark refers (lines 16-34) to employing sensors to activate sprinkler systems to put out any fires, and communication means. The fire sensors are depicted as being associated with the bin 10, without any further reference to where the sensor is either located or the source of any fire. Fire sensors that trigger sprinklers are commonly positioned in locations that allow for the earliest detection of fire. As such, it is more likely that any fire sensor associated with the bin 10 would be that which senses fire around the bin, as one of ordinary skill would desire sensing fire in the storage system as a whole as quickly as possible. Even if the sensitive element of a smoke sensor were positioned inside of the box, that box would ultimately allow smoke to enter the (burning) box, necessarily activating the sensor. Consider that the claim does not call of the sensitive element of any sensor being located exterior to the bin. Consider that decomposing fruit is not normally associated with spontaneous combustion.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26,28,35,34,41,43,45,47,48 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT R RAEVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2204. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon to Fri from 8am to 4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina DeHerrera, can be reached at telephone number 303-297-4237. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/ROBERT R RAEVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights