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 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 1-8 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 1 recites “with respect to the first portion in a plan view the work area as seen from”. It is unclear what exactly Applicant is referring to. It is not certain whether the intention was to recite “as seen from the work area in a plan view” or something completely different.
Claim 7 recites “each of the plurality of transfer systems includes a first transfer system and a second transfer system”. The issue here is that claim 5 establishes a plurality of transfer systems and each of which is designed according to claim 1 and claim 1 specifically defines the transfer system as a whole. So we already have multiple transfer systems in accordance with the structure of claim 1. Now, claim 7 introduces that each of the plurality of transfer systems includes a first transfer system and a second transfer system. This becomes very confusing because on the one hand how do these first/second systems relate to the ones already recited in claim 1 and on the other hand the claim doesn’t even specify whether or not these are completely different transfer systems or not. This claim appears to contradict what is already established in claim 5. Is applicant attempting to claim that there are multiple groupings of transfer systems coming in pairs of two or something entirely different?
Claim 8 as a whole is confusing as it appears to attempt to claim the subcombination in terms of the partition material but appears to rely heavily on positive recitations of the combination structure or transfer system components in order to define this subcombination. Therefore, it does not make sense to say a subcombination comprises elements of a combination. In other words, you can not claim elements of the combination and want to be limited solely to the subcombination since the manner in which the subcombination is described relies on the combination structure. Furthermore, it would be confusing to know what exactly is positively recited and what exactly is required by the claim. For example, does the first portion of the partition have to be disposed so as to be opposite of the transferring part across the work area or are we just limited to a first portion? Thus the claim is not clear, and it is recommended to simply stick to how claim 1 is defined.
Any dependent claims are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 2, 3, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Suzuki (JPH10120108A).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki discloses A transfer system comprising:
a transporting part (5 reads on a transporting part) which transports an article in a first direction;
a transferring part (6) which is provided on one end side of the transporting part and which holds and transfers the article; and
a partition part (fig.5, partition including 14 and 36) which separates (i) a work area (area just outside the transferring part 6 when it is at its end position) positioned opposite to the transporting part across the transferring part in a plan view and (ii) an outside area (area outside of the partition) from each other,
the partition part including
a first portion (fig.5, wall portion having control 14 mounted on its outside and forming the end partition) disposed so as to be opposite to the transferring part across the work area, and
a second portion (fig.5, portions 12 or 13) disposed so as to be inclined at an obtuse angle with respect to the first portion in a plan view the work area as seen from, the second portion being provided with an entry-and-egress door for the work area (as seen in plan view in fig.5, the portions would form a door that can be opened according to the directional arrows).
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki discloses the transfer system according to claim 1, wherein: a controller (controller portion of 14) for the transfer system is provided on a side which is outside the partition part and which is opposite to the work area across the first portion (seen in fig.5, the controller is outside or on an outside surface).
Regarding claim 3, Suzuki discloses the transfer system according to claim 1 or 2, wherein: the entry-and-egress door is turnably supported on a side opposite to a side on which the first portion resides (evident in fig.5, the hinge is opposite from the first portion side).
Regarding claim 8, Suzuki discloses a partition material which separates (i) a work area positioned opposite to a transporting part across a transferring part and (ii) an outside area from each other, the transporting part transporting an article in a first direction, the transferring part being disposed on one end side of the transporting part, the transferring part holding and transferring the article, the partition material comprising: a first portion disposed so as to be opposite to the transferring part across the work area, and a second portion disposed so as to be inclined at an obtuse angle with respect to the first portion as seen from the work area in a plan view, the second portion being provided with an entry-and-egress door for the work area (see the annotations for claim 1 regarding the limitations).
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (JPH10120108A).
Regarding claim 4, Suzuki discloses an obtuse angle as seen in figure 5 but fails to explicitly disclose the exact measure of said angle or in other words that the obtuse angle is not less than 130 degrees and not more than 140 degrees.
It has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to obvious, see MPEP 2143, rationale E under the KSR ruling. In this situation, it was established in the prior art the need to put the partition at an angle so as to increase space for the crane, and one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that there’s only a finite number of solutions for the angles to be set with said partition while still being reasonably usable in the facility space. Changing said angles would have been obvious to try since there a finite number of predictable solutions. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the angle to be within the 130 to 140 degree range in order to provide the predictable results of maximizing the space of the work area relative to the overall space of the facility.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (JPH10120108A) in view of Gealy et al. (USP 12427546).
Regarding claim 5, Suzuki fails to disclose a transfer facility comprising: a plurality of transfer systems each of which is a transfer system recited in a plurality of transfer systems each of which is a transfer system recited in the plurality of transfer systems being arranged side by side along a second direction which is orthogonal to the first direction in a plan view so that the transporting parts of the plurality of transfer systems are substantially in parallel with each other. It is noted that Suzuki only shows a small section of a warehouse and it would be understood that a warehouse configured in the manner in Suzuki would have multiple shelving rows and transfer systems.
Gealy teaches the concept of utilizing multiple partition systems in a transfer facility having a plurality of transfer systems such as seen in figure 8.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transfer facility disclosed in Suzuki to make use of multiple transfer systems arranged side by side in a plan view as taught by Gealy et al. in order to provide the predictable results of protecting the transfer systems during use.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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.
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Contains similar partition systems to the disclosed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS C DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5461. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, John Olszewski can be reached at 571-272-2706. 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.
/THOMAS C DIAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617
