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 .
Status of claims
Currently claims 1-20 are cancelled and claims 21-40 are new.
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:
Fire extinguishing device in claims 21 and 39.
Evaluation unit in claim 26.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 21, 25-26, 29, 32, 34-35, 37-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoshinaga (U.S. 2013/0270063).
With respect to claim 21, Yoshinaga discloses a high-bay storage system (figures 1-5) for storing and retrieving containers (see figures 1 and 2, being the articles stored within the storage areas), comprising:
a plurality of rack compartments (see figure 2, noted with panels 8) for the containers (within the compartments), the rack compartments being arranged horizontally next to one another and vertically one above another (see figure 2);
storage aisles (see figures 1 and 3, where 1 is located) arranged between groups of the rack compartments (see figure 1), the storage aisles (where 1 is located) extending parallel to one another (being multiple aisles with multiple cranes located therein); and
a respective stacker crane (1) arranged in each of the storage aisles (4), wherein the respective stacker crane (1) is movable back and forth and configured to move the containers (as shown in figures 1, abstract) vertically and horizontally and into and out of the rack compartments (paragraph 0023),
wherein at least one respective stacker crane (1) is connected to a fire extinguishing device (having nozzles 31).
With respect to claim 25, Yoshinaga discloses a device (paragraph 0059-0060) for detecting a temperature and/or a change in temperature of the rack compartments (paragraph 0059-0060).
With respect to claim 26, Yoshinaga discloses the device for detecting the temperature and/or the change in temperature of the rack compartments is connected to a display and/or evaluation unit (paragraph 0060, being the detecting apparatus 10b, where the sensors is 10a) configured to evaluate signals from sensors of the device for detecting the temperature and/or the change in temperature (paragraph 0060, as it determines that there is a fire and notifies the ground side controller) .
With respect to claim 29, Yoshinaga discloses the device for detecting the temperature and/or the change in temperature comprises optical and/or electrical sensors (as the sensors or in electrical communication such that they can communicate with the controller and detecting apparatus).
With respect to claim 32, Yoshinaga discloses the device for detecting the temperature and/or the change in temperature is able to determine an origin of a container fire (paragraph 0012-0013, where the fire being detected allows for the system to move the body to that location to then put out/remove the object on fire).
With respect to claim 34, Yoshinaga discloses the respective stacker crane (1) can move the containers (articles) into and out of the rack compartments (paragraphs 0011-0013) with longitudinal sides of the containers being aligned parallel to the storage aisles (as the crane moves along the aisle and up/down, paragraph 0031).
With respect to claim 35, Yoshinaga discloses the respective stacker crane can transport the containers suspended and supported from above (being fully capable of move the articles suspended or supported from above, via the crane).
With respect to claim 37, Yoshinaga discloses a method for detecting and fighting fires in a high-bay storage system (figures 1-5), comprising:
storing a container within a rack compartment (the articles being well understood in the art as being containers which hold a product, compartments seen in figure 2) of the high-bay storage system (see figures 1-5);
monitoring a temperature and/or change in temperature of the container (paragraph 0057) or an area surrounding the container (paragraph 0057); and
removing the container (article) from the rack compartment by a stacker crane (figure 3, #1, paragraphs 0016-0017 and 0027-0028, where the scooping action is understood transferring the articles/container to the crane before the fire extinguishing occurs) in case a predefined threshold value of the temperature and/or a change in temperature is exceeded (the indication from the heat sensor that there is a fire).
With respect to claim 38, the container removed from the high-bay storage system by the stacker crane to a container storing bay within the high-bay storage system (paragraphs 0030-0031 being the storing bay of the article extinguishing section).
Claims 21-22, 24-29, 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ito (U.S. 4178994).
With respect to claim 21, Ito discloses a high-bay storage system (figures 1-2) for storing and retrieving containers (16), comprising:
a plurality of rack compartments (where 16 is located) for the containers (16), the rack compartments (where 16s are located) being arranged horizontally next to one another and vertically one above another (see figures 1-2);
storage aisles (where 20 operates) arranged between groups of the rack compartments (see figure 2), the storage aisles (see figure 2) extending parallel to one another (see figures 1-2); and
a respective stacker crane (loader 17 with cage 20) arranged in each of the storage aisles (seen in figure 2), wherein the respective stacker crane (20/17) is movable back and forth and configured to move the containers (16) vertically and horizontally and into and out of the rack compartments (shown in figures 1 and 2),
wherein at least one respective stacker crane (17/20) is connected to a fire extinguishing device (23/24).
With respect to claim 22, Ito discloses the fire extinguishing device (23) has a reservoir (within 23, being 70) for an extinguishing agent placed at a top of the respective stacker crane (being above 20) and interchangeably connected to the respective stacker crane (replacing the tank 70), and an apparatus for supplying the extinguishing agent to an interior of one of the containers (nozzles 71).
With respect to claim 24, Ito discloses the fire extinguishing device (10) can be activated from outside (remote control, abstract, further the control box 24 receives signal outside of said device, column 2 rows 50-65).
With respect to claim 25, Ito discloses a device (32) for detecting a temperature and/or a change in temperature of the rack compartments (where 16 is located).
With respect to claim 26, Ito discloses the device (32) for detecting the temperature and/or the change in temperature of the rack compartments (see figures 1-2) is connected to a display and/or evaluation unit (48) configured to evaluate signals from sensors (48 is a controller receiving the sensor data) of the device (32) for detecting the temperature and/or the change in temperature.
With respect to claim 27, Ito discloses the display and/or evaluation unit (48) outputs an exceedance of a predefined threshold value for the temperature and/or for the change in temperature within one of the rack compartments or an exceedance of an external temperature of one of the containers (2) and outputs a visual and/or audible warning signal (column 3 rows 30-45).
With respect to claim 28, Ito discloses the device (32) for detecting the temperature and/or the change in temperature is configured and designed to record a temperature surrounding at least one of the containers (16) stored in one of the rack compartments (see figures 1-2).
With respect to claim 29, Ito discloses the temperature and/or the change in temperature comprises optical and/or electrical sensors (being electrical sensors wired in with the control system, see figures 4-6).
With respect to claim 32, Ito discloses the device (32) for detecting the temperature and/or the change in temperature is able to determine an origin of a container fire (abstract).
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.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito.
With respect to claim 30, Ito discloses the device (32) for detecting the temperature and/or the change in temperature comprises a cable (being the cabling that connects the sensors with the rest of the system), but fails to disclose wherein sensors (32) are embedded at equal distances of between 1 and 2 m from one another in the cable (9), and wherein the cable (9) is provided at a distance from a row of rack compartments (3) in the high-bay storage system (1), and interchangeably connected to the high-bay storage system (1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a distance between 1 and 2 meters from another for the sensors in Ito, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (such as the sensors being placed along a line/cable), discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05(II-A). Please note in the instant application, applicant has failed to disclose any criticality for the claimed limitations. Furthermore, such placement (or rather density) of the sensors would offer a corresponding coverage of detection, allowing the fire to be detected in a desired time frame from having sensors spaced such that a sensor will be nearer to where the fire might occur. Such further interchangeably connected from the sensors and cable to that of the system, would have been obvious allowing one to change a sensor if it became damaged.
Claim(s) 23, 33, 36, and 39-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito in view of Rosenfeldt (U.S. 11,395,933).
With respect to claims 23 and 39-40, Ito fails to disclose the apparatus for supplying the extinguishing agent to the interior of the one of the containers has a piercer for piercing an outer skin of the one of the containers, or introducing an extinguishing agent into an interior of the container by a fire extinguishing device connected to the stacker crane while or after the container is being picked up by the stacker crane wherein the extinguishing agent is introduced by an activatable piercer.
Rosenfeldt, figures 1-14, discloses a device that pierces (via a drill) an outer skin of the container (shown in figures 1-2) introducing the extinguishing agent to the interior of the container where the fire is (figure 2), allowing for the fire within a container to be put out (column 2 rows 15-20) where such piercing/cutting allows for the fire fighting agent to be applied behind the wall to where the fire is (column 2 rows 25-40).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the piercing element of Rosenfeldt into the system of Ito, allowing for the system to not only extinguishing a fire, but to insert the agent into the container extinguishing the fire within the container itself and not needing open flames from the container.
With respect to claim 33 and 36, Ito discloses 33 the high-bay storage system and having containers and the rack compartments, but fails to disclose the rack compartments (3) are designed and suitable for receiving a 20-foot standard container (1 TEU) or a 40-foot standard container (2 TEU), or two standard containers of half-length arranged one behind another in a longitudinal direction or wherein the high-bay storage system (1) is suitable for storing more than 2500 TEU/ha.
Rosenfeldt, column 5 rows 10-20, discloses such containers (being an ISO container) that are known to be used for storage, and it is desirable to extinguish fires that occur within them into the system of Ito. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize such containers (which are standardized dimensions being at 20ft and 40ft) as taught by Rosenfeldt into the system of Ito, as such container sizes are the standard size containers used in shipping, and thus a storage facility designed for housing containers would ideally use the containers known in the art and widely used. Furthermore, such a bay system being suitable for storing more than 2500 TEU/ha would have a desired height and floor plan, and would be ideally utilizing the maximum amount of space necessary to house the containers therein, utilizing something to be “suitable” for such storage would then be an obvious optimization of the storage space to house as many containers as is safely possible (specifically in a vertical direction, as the increase of containers would require stacking them upwards to obtain such a density as 2500 TEU per HA).
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito in view of Johnson (U.S. 2008/0271902)
With respect to claim 31, Ito discloses a cable (being the wiring that connects the detectors) but fails to disclose the cable has a heat-resistant sheathing.
Johnson, paragraph 0029, discloses that the cable wires that communicate the signal from the heat sensors to the controls are in a protective sheath protecting it from excessive heat or fire.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize ta heat-resistant sheathing about a cable as disclosed by Johnson into the system of Ito, to protect the cable wires that communicate the signal from the heat sensors to the controller.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A GREENLUND whose telephone number is (571)272-0397. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at 571-270-1814. 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.
/JOSEPH A GREENLUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
