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 .
This is the First Office action on the Merits from the examiner in charge of this application.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Specification, (i) page 6, line 25, “couplet” should be “coupled”; (ii) page 6, line 30, “third gear wheel 37” should be “third gear wheel 38”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9 are objected to because of the following informalities: (i) claim 1, line 1, “[S]torage system” should be “A storage system”; (ii) claim 1, lines 15-16, “the first and the second engagement point” should be “the first and the second engagement points”; (iii) claims 2-9, line 1, “[S]ystem”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Regarding claim 1, line 3, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the shelving unit" in line 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "for instance" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 7: since claim 1, line 20 recites “a manual operating element”, the recitation in claim 7, line 1 of “a manual operating element” renders the claim indefinite for failing to clearly define whether it is the same or different from the manual operating element recited in claim 1. For the purpose of this examination, the examiner is considering that they are the same.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 9, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 2-9 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, a rejected claim.
Since the claims are repleted with indefiniteness, all claims will be examined as best understood or so far as definite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-9, as best understood or so far as definite, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USP 7645000 to Rainville in view of FR 2143996 (hereinafter FR ‘996).
Rainville discloses (Claim 1). A storage system, comprising a mobile base for supporting at least one cabinet 12 or a shelving unit 12, that is: movable and in particular rollable with respect to a support surface, provided with a drive mechanism that extends via a transmission between at least a first engagement point 14 for receiving a driving force or torque, to at least a second engagement point 19 for exerting a driving force or torque on the surface, wherein the cabinet or shelving unit 12 is provided with: an emergency braking facility, with at least: one activating member 30,30’, which emergency braking facility is adapted to stop the cabinet or shelving unit 12 to a standstill with a limited braking torque or with a limited braking force when the activating member 30,30’ is enabled, wherein the emergency braking facility is adapted to block the drive mechanism at a blocking point located between the first 14 and the second 19 engagement points, wherein a first force or torque limiter 15, such as a slip clutch, is present between the blocking point and the second engagement point 19, wherein: the drive mechanism comprises a manual operating element 14, such as a wheel or a handle at the first engagement point 14 for manually driving the shelving unit 12; (Claim 2). The system according to claim 1, wherein the force or torque limiter 15 has an adjustable value for the force or torque to which it is limited, wherein the threshold value is determined by a set or measured weight of the shelving unit and/or a load thereof; (Claim 3). The system according to claim 1, wherein the activating member comprises a pressure sensor 30,30’ connected to the cabinet, for instance formed by or coupled to a plinth of said cabinet, comprising a cam or hook 53 (such as shown in Fig. 4A-5B), adapted to engage in an enabled position on a slot, recess or teeth, arranged on or coupled to the transmission, for forming a blocking; (Claim 4). The system according to claim 1, wherein the cabinet 12 is provided with at least two activating members 30,30’, arranged on either side in width direction of the cabinet 12, each adapted to block the drive of the cabinet when the activating member 30,30’ is activated on their respective side; (Claim 5). The system according to claim 1, wherein the emergency braking facility is adapted to anchor the drive mechanism as long as it is not driven in an opposite direction to the direction in which it was blocked; (Claim 7). The system according to claim 1, wherein the manual operating element 14 is present at the first engagement point, for manually driving the shelving unit; (Claim 8). The system according to claim 1, wherein the second engagement point comprises a slip-less coupling such as a gear wheel adapted to engage on a chain arranged in or on the support surface (such as shown in Fig. 2; col. 4, lines 32-53); (Claim 9). The system according to claim 1, comprising a plurality of shelving units 12 that are movable relative to the support surface and in particular rollable, wherein the shelving units are movable over a common rail system T.
The differences being that Rainville fails to clearly disclose the limitations in (i) claim 1 of the drive mechanism further comprises a second force or torque limiter, such as a slip clutch arranged in said transmission for manually driving the shelving unit 12; wherein: the second force or torque limiter, such as a slip clutch in the transmission for manually driving the shelving unit 12, has a threshold torque above which it starts limiting or slipping, that is lower than a threshold torque of the first force or torque limiter 15, such as a slip clutch, of the emergency braking facility; (ii) claim 6.
FR ‘996 discloses a storage system, comprising a mobile base for supporting at least one cabinet or shelving unit 1, that is: movable and in particular rollable with respect to a support surface, provided with a drive mechanism that extends via a transmission between at least a first engagement point 6 for receiving a driving force or torque, to at least a second engagement point 7 for exerting a driving force or torque on the surface, wherein the drive mechanism comprises a manual operating element 6 at the first engagement point 6 for manually driving the shelving unit 1 further comprises a second force or torque limiter arranged in said transmission for manually driving the shelving unit 1; wherein: a force or torque limiter, such as a slip clutch in the transmission for manually driving the shelving unit 1, has a threshold torque above which it starts limiting or slipping, wherein a reduction gearbox 8 is located between the second engagement point 7 and the first engagement point 6, for reducing the number of revolutions of a drive movement from the first engagement point to the second engagement point 7.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in view of FR ‘996, to modify Rainville to include the limitations in (i) claim 1 of the drive mechanism further comprises a second force or torque limiter, such as a slip clutch arranged in said transmission for manually driving the shelving unit 12; (ii) claim 6 of wherein a reduction gearbox is located between the blocking point and the first engagement point, for reducing the number of revolutions of a drive movement from the first engagement point to the blocking point with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the overall versatility of the storage system. Regarding the limitations in claim 1 of wherein: the second force or torque limiter, such as a slip clutch in the transmission for manually driving the shelving unit 12, has a threshold torque above which it starts limiting or slipping, that is lower than a threshold torque of the first force or torque limiter 15, such as a slip clutch, of the emergency braking facility, the examiner respectfully take the position it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rainville, as modified, such that wherein: the second force or torque limiter, such as a slip clutch in the transmission for manually driving the shelving unit 12, has a threshold torque above which it starts limiting or slipping, that is lower than a threshold torque of the first force or torque limiter 15, such as a slip clutch, of the emergency braking facility with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the overall versatility of the storage system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and all show structures similar to various elements of applicant’s disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANH VAN TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6868. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30.
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, DANIEL TROY can be reached at (571)270-3742. 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.
HVT
August 19, 2026
/HANH V TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights