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 .
Status of the Claims
In the communication filed on 12/17/2025 claims 27-40 and 42-52 are pending. Independent claim 27 has been amended to clarify language and to include the limitations of cancelled claim 41.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed 12/17/2025, with respect to the rejection of independent claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hognaland (USPGPN 20160325932) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Hognaland and a newly cited prior art reference Fratelli et al. (USPGPN 20170267105).
The applicant argues in pages 11-14 of the Remarks dated 12/17/2025 that Hognaland and/or Sastry fail to teach "the rechargeable battery being configured to primarily supply charge to the assembly of one or more supercapacitor modules rather than directly to the electrical loads, and wherein the assembly of one or more supercapacitor modules is configured as a primary power supply for the load handling device, and the rechargeable battery is configured as an auxiliary power supply for providing power to the primary power supply", however, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The applicant argues that Sastry and Hognaland is not an obvious modification since “to arrive at the claimed invention would require a substantial reconstruction and redesign of the elements disclosed in Hognaland and would change the basic principle under which the Hognaland apparatus was designed to operate”.
However, the examiner relies upon the newly found prior art reference Fratelli to teach the argued limitations in the rejection below.
The remaining arguments are moot as the applicant’s arguments for the remaining claims were based on dependency of the independent claims.
The objections to the drawings, the specification, and the claims are withdrawn due to the amendments made by the applicant.
This Office Action is made Final due to the amendments made by the applicant.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 27, 32, 38-40, and 43-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hognaland (USPGPN 20160325932) and further in view of Fratelli et al. (USPGPN 20170267105).
With respect to claim 27, Hognaland teaches a load handling device for lifting and moving one or more containers stacked in a storage system having a grid framework supporting a pathway arranged in a grid pattern above stacks of containers (Figs. 1-9; a robot 1 (i.e., a load handling device) for lifting and moving one or more storage bins 2 (i.e., containers) in a storage system 3 having a grid 15 framework with supporting rails 13 (i.e., pathway) arranged in a grid pattern above stacks of storage bins 2 in storage columns 8).
Hognaland teaches a vehicle body housing a driving mechanism configured to be operatively arranged for moving the load handling device on the grid framework (Figs. 1-9; a vehicle body 4 housing a driving means 10,11 (i.e., driving mechanism) configured to be operatively arranged for moving the robot 1 on the grid 15 framework).
Hognaland teaches a lifting device having a lifting drive assembly and a grabber device configured, in use, to releasably grip a container and lift the container from the stack into a container-receiving space (Figs. 1-9; ¶ [47]; “A vehicle lifting device 9 is lowered a distance into the storage column 8 in order to hook onto and lift up any storage bin 2 within the column 8.” One of ordinary skill understands the lifting device 9 has a lifting drive assembly and a grabber device configured, in use, to releasably grip a container and lift the container from the stack into a container-receiving space).
Hognaland teaches wherein the lifting drive assembly and/or the driving mechanism includes at least one motor forming electrical loads (¶ [50]; “Note that driving means 10,11 includes all mechanisms and/or components within the robot 1 that at least ensures lateral movements, including wheels, motor, gears, etc.” One of ordinary skill understands these are electrical loads).
Hognaland teaches a rechargeable battery (Figs. 6a-6b; ¶ [15]; main battery 6 is rechargeable).
Hognaland teaches an assembly of one or more supercapacitor modules (Figs. 6a-6b; ¶ [14]; auxiliary power source 21 is a supercapacitor).
Hognaland teaches wherein the electrical loads are connected across the assembly of one or more supercapacitor modules, and the rechargeable battery is connected in parallel to the assembly of one or more supercapacitor modules such the rechargeable battery being configured to primarily supply charge to the assembly of one or more supercapacitor modules rather than directly to the electrical loads (Figs. 6a-6b; ¶ [13]; the driving means 10,11 comprising the electrical loads are connected across the auxiliary power source 21, and the main battery 6 is connected in parallel to the auxiliary power source 21 such that the main battery 6 is configured and arranged to provide power to the auxiliary power source 21 rather than directly to the driving means 10,11).
However, Hognaland fails to explicitly teach wherein the assembly of one or more supercapacitor modules is configured as a primary power supply for the load handling device, and the rechargeable battery is configured as an auxiliary power supply for providing power to the primary power supply.
Fratelli teaches wherein the assembly of one or more supercapacitor modules is configured as a primary power supply for the load handling device, and the rechargeable battery is configured as an auxiliary power supply for providing power to the primary power supply (¶[02]; “The ultracapacitors are the primary source of power and the batteries are used as auxiliary or secondary source of power.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Fratelli’s supercapacitor/ultracapacitor as the primary source and the rechargeable battery as the secondary source to Hognaland’s vehicle lifting device. The advantage of this being the system allow users to simultaneously enjoy performances of supercapacitors in exchanging high powers, which is essential for fulfilling functions of increasing energetic efficiency and containing power peaks in catenary by harvesting kinetic energy of the vehicle during braking step, thus turning kinetic energy into electrical energy stored in the supercapacitors, re-using electrical energy and reducing energy consumptions with remarkable advantages for train operators in terms of costs and eco-sustainability. The system allows an accumulator module to deliver a high power density and enable a large number of cycles in a working life for accepting low energy density so as to minimize weight of the system, space taken up and cost of power supply and energy harvesting system. See ¶[15, 92] of Fratelli.
With respect to claim 32, Hognaland teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 27. Further, Hognaland teaches a controller configured to vary power supplied from the rechargeable battery to the assembly of one or more supercapacitor modules (Figs. 6a-6b; ¶ [13, 48, 50]; a circuit board 19 controls power flow from main battery 6 to the auxiliary power source 21).
With respect to claim 38, Hognaland teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 27. Further, Hognaland teaches in which the assembly of one or more supercapacitor modules is configured to have a lower internal resistance than the rechargeable battery (It is well known by one of ordinary skill that supercapacitors have lower internal resistances than batteries, so they can provide high power quickly and recharge fast with little energy loss).
With respect to claim 39, Hognaland teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 27. Further, Hognaland teaches in which the electrical loads comprise a first portion and a second portion, where the first portion of the electrical loads includes motive power loads, and the second portion of the electrical loads includes non-motive power loads (Figs. 6a-6b; the driving means 10,11 includes to the motive power loads and the circuit board/wireless communications means 19 includes non-motive power loads).
With respect to claim 40, Hognaland teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 39. Further, Hognaland teaches in which the rechargeable battery is configured to supply charge to the non-motive power loads (Figs. 6a; the main battery 6 is configured to supply charge to the circuit board/wireless communications means 19 (i.e., the non-motive power loads)).
With respect to claim 43, Hognaland teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 27. Further, Hognaland teaches in which the assembly of one or more supercapacitor modules are distributed around an outside of a container-receiving recess within the vehicle body of the load handling device (Figs. 1-9; the auxiliary power source 21 is distributed around an outside of a cavity 7 (i.e., the container-receiving recess) within the vehicle body 4 of the robot 1).
Hognaland teaches between an outer wall and an inner wall of the load handling device (between an outer wall and an inner wall of the load handling device as illustrated in Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 44, Hognaland teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 27. Further, Hognaland teaches in which the assembly of one or more supercapacitor modules comprises at least one or more of: capacitors, supercapacitors, ultracapacitors, lithium capacitors, electrochemical double layer capacitors, electric double layer capacitors, pseudocapacitors, and/or hybrid capacitors (Figs. 6a-6b; ¶ [14]; “at least one of the main power sources and/or at least one of the auxiliary power sources, is a capacitor, for example a supercapacitor such as a double-layer capacitor, a pseudocapacitor and/or a hybrid capacitor.”).
With respect to claim 45, Hognaland teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 27. Further, Hognaland teaches in which the rechargeable battery comprises at least one or more of: lithium ion batteries, lithium-ion polymer batteries, lithium-air batteries, lithium-iron batteries, lithium-iron-phosphate batteries, lead-acid batteries, nickel-cadmium batteries, nickel- metal hydride batteries, nickel-zinc batteries, sodium-ion batteries, sodium-air batteries, thin film batteries, solid state batteries, and/or smart battery carbon foam-based lead acid batteries (Figs. 6a-6b; ¶ [15]; “Examples of rechargeable batteries are Lithium-Ion battery, Nickel-Cadmium battery, Nickel-Metal Hydride battery, Lithium-Ion Polymer battery, Lithium Sulfur battery, Thin Film battery, Smart battery Carbon Foam-based Lead Acid battery, Potassium-Ion battery, Sodium-Ion battery or a combination thereof.”).
With respect to claim 46, Hognaland teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 27. Further, Hognaland teaches the storage system comprising, in combination the grid framework supporting the pathway arranged in the grid pattern above stacks of containers; and a plurality of load handling devices (Fig. 1; the storage system 3 having the grid 15 framework with supporting rails 13 (i.e., pathway) arranged in the grid pattern above stacks of storage bins 2 in storage columns 8 and a plurality of robots 1).
Claims 28-31, 42, and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hognaland and Fratelli, and further in view of Sastry et al. (USPGPN 20080248918).
With respect to claim 28, Hognaland teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 27. However, Hognaland fails to explicitly teach a load DCDC converter between the assembly of one or more supercapacitor modules and the electrical loads.
Sastry teaches a load DCDC converter between the assembly of one or more supercapacitor modules and the electrical loads (Fig. 2; buck-boost converter 52 between the storage bank 50 and the motors 16/30. The storage bank 50 comprises ultra capacitors, see ¶ [20]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Hognaland’s apparatus by adding Sastry’s load DCDC converter, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to employ/use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, products) in the same way is obvious.
With respect to claim 29, Hognaland teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 28. However, Hognaland fails to explicitly teach in which the load DCDC converter between the assembly of one or more supercapacitor modules and the electrical loads is a boost converter.
Sastry teaches in which the load DCDC converter between the assembly of one or more supercapacitor modules and the electrical loads is a boost converter (Fig. 2; the buck-boost converter 52 has boost capabilities).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Hognaland’s apparatus by adding Sastry’s boost features of the load DCDC converter, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to employ/use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, products) in the same way is obvious
With respect to claim 30, Hognaland teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 29. However, Hognaland fails to explicitly teach a source DCDC converter between the rechargeable battery and the assembly of one or more supercapacitor modules.
Sastry teaches a source DCDC converter between the rechargeable battery and the assembly of one or more supercapacitor modules (Fig. 2; buck-boost converter 48 between the energy storage system 40 and the storage bank 50. The energy storage system 40 comprises a plurality of battery cells, see ¶ [14]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Hognaland’s apparatus by adding Sastry’s source DCDC converter, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to employ/use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, products) in the same way is obvious.
With respect to claim 31, Hognaland teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 30. However, Hognaland fails to explicitly teach in which the source DCDC converter between the rechargeable battery and the assembly of one or more supercapacitor modules is a buck converter.
Sastry teaches in which the source DCDC converter between the rechargeable battery and the assembly of one or more supercapacitor modules is a buck converter (Fig. 2; the buck-boost converter 48 has buck capabilities).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Hognaland’s apparatus by adding Sastry’s buck features of the source DCDC converter, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to employ/use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, products) in the same way is obvious.
With respect to claim 42, Hognaland teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 32. Further, Hognaland teaches where the controller is configured to instruct the rechargeable battery to provide power directly to the electrical loads when a voltage across the assembly of one or more supercapacitor modules is below a predetermined supercapacitor voltage threshold (¶ [13]; “the one or more auxiliary power sources and the one or more main power sources are interconnected such that the main power source(s) may charge the auxiliary power source(s) while the main power source(s) provides electrical power to the vehicle”. One of ordinary skill understands that when the voltage of the supercapacitor falls below its charge threshold, the main battery provides power to the electrical loads while also recharging the supercapacitor back above the threshold).
With respect to claim 49, Hognaland teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 32. However, Hognaland fails to explicitly teach in which the controller on the load handling device is configured to instruct the assembly of one or more supercapacitor modules to charge the rechargeable battery.
Sastry teaches in which the controller on the load handling device is configured to instruct the assembly of one or more supercapacitor modules to charge the rechargeable battery (Fig. 2; the storage bank 50 charges the energy storage system 40 as indicated by the power flow arrows).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Hognaland’s apparatus by adding Sastry’s method of energy transfer between the multiple sources and loads, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to employ/use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, products) in the same way is obvious.
Claims 33-34 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hognaland and Fratelli, and further in view of Fjeldheim (USPGPN 20250256583).
With respect to claim 33, Hognaland teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 32. However, Hognaland fails to explicitly teach in which the controller is configured to instruct the rechargeable battery to supply charge to the assembly of one or more supercapacitor modules when a voltage of the assembly of one or more supercapacitor modules is below a predetermined supercapacitor target voltage threshold.
Fjeldheim teaches in which the controller is configured to instruct the rechargeable battery to supply charge to the assembly of one or more supercapacitor modules when a voltage of the assembly of one or more supercapacitor modules is below a predetermined supercapacitor target voltage threshold (Fig. 4; ¶ [55, 69]; the first rechargeable power source 405 (i.e., a rechargeable battery) may supply charge to the second rechargeable power source 406 (i.e., a supercapacitor) when the charge level of the supercapacitor is too low (i.e., below a threshold). One of ordinary skill understands the charge level of a supercapacitor (or a capacitor) is a direct indicator of the voltage level).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Hognaland’s apparatus by adding Fjeldheim’s method of energy transfer between the main battery and the supercapacitor, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to employ/use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, products) in the same way is obvious.
With respect to claim 34, Hognaland teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 33. Further, Hognaland teaches in which the predetermined supercapacitor target voltage threshold is lower than a maximum rated voltage of the assembly of one or more supercapacitor modules (It is well known by one of ordinary skill that the predetermined supercapacitor target voltage threshold must be set below the maximum rated voltage of the supercapacitor since operation above this limit can cause dielectric breakdown and irreversible damage).
With respect to claim 37, Hognaland teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 27. However, Hognaland fails to explicitly teach an energy recovery circuit configured to divert regenerated energy from the driving mechanism and/or the lifting drive assembly to the assembly of one or more supercapacitor modules, wherein the energy recovery circuit includes a diode or transistor.
Fjeldheim teaches an energy recovery circuit configured to divert regenerated energy from the driving mechanism and/or the lifting drive assembly to the assembly of one or more supercapacitor modules (Fig. 4; ¶ [54]; a regenerative energy circuit is configured to direct the harvested energy from the motor 407 to the first rechargeable power source 405 and the second rechargeable power source 406).
Fjeldheim teaches wherein the energy recovery circuit includes a diode or transistor (It is well known by one of ordinary skill that diodes and transistors form the fundamental building blocks of regenerative and energy recovery circuits, where diodes provide essential current paths and protection, while transistors enable controlled switching and bidirectional energy flow).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Hognaland’s apparatus by adding Fjeldheim’s method of energy transfer from the motor back to the rechargeable sources using an energy recovery circuit, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to employ/use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, products) in the same way is obvious.
Claims 35 and 50-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hognaland and Fratelli, and further in view of Qureshi (USPGPN 20180076644).
With respect to claim 35, Hognaland teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 32. However, Hognaland fails to explicitly teach in which the controller is configured to instruct the rechargeable battery to supply charge to the assembly of one or more supercapacitor modules at a predetermined threshold current for battery balancing.
Qureshi teaches in which the controller is configured to instruct the rechargeable battery to supply charge to the assembly of one or more supercapacitor modules for battery balancing (¶ [39]; charge from the auxiliary storage to the supercapacitor when there’s an undercharge imbalance).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Hognaland’s apparatus by adding Qureshi’s battery and supercapacitor balancing method, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to employ/use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, products) in the same way is obvious.
Hognaland discloses the claimed invention except for a predetermined threshold current. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to supply charge at a predetermined threshold current for battery balancing, since it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious.
With respect to claim 50, Hognaland teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 32. However, Hognaland fails to explicitly teach in which the controller is configured to instruct the one or more supercapacitor modules to supply charge to the rechargeable battery at a predetermined threshold current for battery balancing.
Qureshi teaches in which the controller is configured to instruct the one or more supercapacitor modules to supply charge to the rechargeable battery for battery balancing (¶ [39]; charge from the supercapacitor to the auxiliary storage when there’s an overcharge imbalance).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Hognaland’s apparatus by adding Qureshi’s battery and supercapacitor balancing method, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to employ/use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, products) in the same way is obvious.
Hognaland discloses the claimed invention except for a predetermined threshold current. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to supply charge at a predetermined threshold current for battery balancing, since it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious.
With respect to claim 51, Hognaland teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 50. Further, Hognaland teaches a fulfilment centre, comprising in combination: the storage system of claim; and a plurality of load handling devices (Fig. 1; the storage system 3 having the grid 15 framework with supporting rails 13 (i.e., pathway) arranged in the grid pattern above stacks of storage bins 2 in storage columns 8 and a plurality of robots 1. One of ordinary skill understands this is a fulfilment center).
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hognaland and Fratelli, and further in view of Huang (USPGPN 20200148143).
With respect to claim 36, Hognaland teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 32. However, Hognaland fails to explicitly teach in which the controller is configured, in use, to periodically disconnect the rechargeable battery from the assembly of one or more supercapacitor modules, such that the rechargeable battery will experience periods of low current drain where no charge is supplied to the assembly of one or more supercapacitor modules.
Huang teaches in which the controller is configured, in use, to periodically disconnect the rechargeable battery from the assembly of one or more supercapacitor modules, such that the rechargeable battery will experience periods of low current drain where no charge is supplied to the assembly of one or more supercapacitor modules (Fig. 3; ¶ [52-54]; periodically, the MCU will disconnect the battery unit 30 from the supercapacitor 40 such that the battery unit 30 will experience periods of low current drain because during disconnection, no charge is supplied to the supercapacitor 40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Hognaland’s apparatus by adding Huang’s method for periodically disconnecting the battery so that it experiences periods of low current drain, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to employ/use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, products) in the same way is obvious.
Claims 47-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hognaland and Fratelli, and further in view of Brien et al. (USPN 6265851).
With respect to claim 47, Hognaland teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 46. Further, Hognaland teaches one or more charge stations located at a grid location above an access point (Fig. 5; one or more charge stations 20 and 20’ located at a grid location above an access point).
Hognaland teaches lifting or lowering operations (¶ [02, 33]; lowering and raising operations).
However, Hognaland fails to explicitly teach supercapacitor charge stations, in which the assembly of one or more supercapacitor modules on the load handling device is charged by one of the one or more supercapacitor charge stations during lifting or lowering operations.
Brien teaches supercapacitor charge stations, in which the assembly of one or more supercapacitor modules on the load handling device is charged by one of the one or more supercapacitor charge stations during operations (Col 2. lines 18-32; the electric vehicle comprising an ultracapacitor (i.e., a supercapacitor) is charged by a recharging system as it passes by (i.e., during operations)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Hognaland’s apparatus by adding Brien’s supercapacitor charging station, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to employ/use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, products) in the same way is obvious.
With respect to claim 48, Hognaland teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 47. However, Hognaland fails to explicitly teach in which the one or more supercapacitor charge stations are inductive supercapacitor charge stations.
Brien teaches in which the one or more supercapacitor charge stations are inductive supercapacitor charge stations (Fig. 6; the supercapacitor charge station is inductive).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Hognaland’s apparatus by adding Brien’s inductive supercapacitor charging station, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to employ/use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, products) in the same way is obvious.
Claim 52 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hognaland, Fratelli, and Qureshi, and further in view of De Angelis et al. (USPGPN 20160376103).
With respect to claim 52, Hognaland teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 51. However, Hognaland fails to explicitly teach in which a temperature inside the fulfilment centre is any one or more of: an ambient temperature at or above 40°C; a refrigerated temperature between substantially 0°C to substantially 40°C; and/or a frozen temperature between substantially -25°C to substantially 0°C.
De Angelis teaches in which a temperature inside the fulfilment centre is any one or more of: a refrigerated temperature between substantially 0°C to substantially 40°C; and/or a frozen temperature between substantially -25°C to substantially 0°C (¶ [54]; “In this way, different kinds of items having different storage environment requirements may be stored within the same building or other enclosure. For example, books may be stored at one temperature/humidity condition, wine may be stored at a different temperature than books, and so forth. In some embodiments, one or more zones may be held refrigerated temperatures (34-40° F., e.g.) for the storage of food or medicines. In some embodiments, one or more zones may be held below 32° F., and may be used for storage of frozen foods or other items best stored in freezing temperatures.” One of ordinary skill understands converting Fahrenheit to Celsius results in the ranges claimed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Hognaland’s apparatus by adding De Angelis’s temperature control of the storage environments, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to employ/use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, products) in the same way is obvious.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Snyder et al. (USPGPN 20090212626) teaches a dual-energy storage system is described, having two energy sources: (a) a fast-energy storage devices (FES) such as an ultracapacitor, and (b) a long duration or steady power device, such as a fuel-cell or battery. A power converter or controller executes an energy management algorithm to determine when to provide bursts of additional power/current from the fast-energy storage device, and when to recharge the fast-energy storage device.
The following references were identified by the applicant and/or cited in Foreign Office Actions. These were considered by the examiner, however, they were not relied upon by the examiner for citation purposes:
WO 2021030779 A2
WO 2020169474 A1
WO 2019238702 A1
WO 2019215221 A1
WO 2016166353 A1
WO 2015185628 A2
WO 2015104263 A2
WO 2015019055 A1
WO 2012074094 A1
US 9821959 B2
US 7764044 B2
US 20210276445 A1
US 20210261014 A1
US 20210086993 A1
US 20210086992 A1
US 20210047111 A1
US 20200307908 A1
US 20200047635 A1
US 20190245366 A1
US 20190220027 A1
US 20190176655 A1
US 20180178981 A1
US 20180178980 A1
US 20180154779 A1
US 20180086558 A1
US 20180001778 A1
US 20170326995 A1
US 20170072809 A1
US 20160194151 A1
US 20160185245 A1
US 20120200259 A1
US 20120191517 A1
US 20110262253 A1
US 20110084648 A1
US 20080067973 A1
KR 20160106098 A
JP 2020022262 A
JP 2018514483 A
JP 2017503731 A
JP 2016529181 A
JP 2012228015 A
JP 2012147563 A
JP 2006050779 A
CN 106965683 B
CN 106965683 A
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 Frank A Silva whose telephone number is (703)756-1698. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 09:30 am -06:30 pm ET.
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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 571-272-2312. 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.
/FRANK ALEXIS SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859