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
Claims 1-19 were previously pending. Claims 1, 4-16, and 18-19 were amended, and new claims 20-21 were added in the reply filed February 19, 2026. Claims 1-21 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejections made under §§ 102 & 103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 11-18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rollwa, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0053758 (Reference A of the attached PTO-892) in view of Dupree, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0288787 (Reference A of the PTO-892 part of paper no. 20251108).
As per claim 1, Rollwa teaches a block storage arrangement comprising: multiple container receiving chambers, in which each container receiving chamber is configured to store a stack of containers or bins (¶ 0032); at least one loading vehicle, which is movable in a loading direction to the multiple container receiving chambers, includes a container receiver for the at least one container (¶ 0034); and at loading chamber from which the containers or bins are insertable into the container receiving chambers being arranged below the multiple container receiving chambers (¶ 0034; Fig. 1).
Rollwa does not explicitly teach upstream of the multiple container receiving chambers in the loading direction, a container load center of gravity of the at least one container is determined; which is taught by Dupree (¶ 0067). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element for the same reason it is useful in Dupree—namely, in order to better load items by considering more of their attributes. Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art of transporting and loading items. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
As per claim 3, Rollwa in view of Dupree teaches claim 1 as above. Dupree further teaches the determination of the center of gravity of the at least one container includes a determination of a mass of the at least one container (¶ 0067—examiner notes that in the loading context of the reference that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that the terms mass and weight can be used interchangeably), which would have been obvious to incorporate for the same reasons as the elements in claim 1 above.
As per claim 4, Rollwa in view of Dupree teaches claim 1 as above. Dupree further teaches one of the multiple container receiving chambers is selected for loading with the at least one container as a function of the determined container load center of gravity (¶¶ 0060, 81-82), which would have been obvious to incorporate for the same reasons as the elements in claim 1 above.
As per claim 5, Rollwa in view of Dupree teaches claim 1 as above. Dupree further teaches a device for determining the container load center of gravity, which is arranged upstream of the container receiving chambers in the loading direction (¶¶ 0067, 82), which would have been obvious to incorporate for the same reasons as the elements in claim 1 above.
As per claim 7, Rollwa in view of Dupree teaches claim 5 as above. Dupree further teaches the device for determining a container load center of gravity is configured to determine a mass of the at least one container (¶ 0067), which would have been obvious to incorporate for the same reasons as the elements in claim 1 above.
As per claim 8, Rollwa in view of Dupree teaches claim 5 as above. Dupree further teaches a control device that is coupled to the device for determining a container load center of gravity, the control device being configured to select a container receiving chamber as a function of an output signal from the device for determining a container load center of gravity (¶¶ 0067, 81-82), which would have been obvious to incorporate for the same reasons as the elements in claim 1 above.
As per claim 11, Rollwa in view of Dupree teaches claim 5 as above. Dupree further teaches the device for determining a container load center of gravity is arranged one of in a work or transfer station or on the loading vehicle (¶ 0067), which would have been obvious to incorporate for the same reasons as the elements in claim 1 above.
As per claim 12, Rollwa in view of Dupree teaches claim 5 as above. Dupree further teaches the device for determining a container load center of gravity comprises an optical recording device (¶¶ 0046, 54, 129), which would have been obvious to incorporate for the same reasons as the elements in claim 1 above.
As per claim 13, Dupree teaches a method for operating a block storage arrangement having multiple container receiving chambers, in which each container receiving chamber is configured to store a stack of containers or bins (¶ 0033), at least one loading vehicle, which is moveable in a loading direction to the container receiving chambers (¶ 0034), and a loading chamber from which the containers or bins are insertable into the container receiving chambers being arranged below the multiple container receiving chambers (¶ 0033; Fig. 1), the method, comprising: transporting at least one container into the loading chamber (¶ 0034); inserting the at least one container from the loading chamber into one of the multiple container receiving chambers (¶ 0034).
Rollwa does not explicitly teach determining a container loading center of gravity of the at least one container before the at least one container is stored in the one container receiving chamber; which is taught by Dupree (¶¶ 0067, 82) and would have been obvious to incorporate for the same reasons as in claim 1 above.
As per claim 14, Rollwa in view of Dupree teaches claim 13 as above. Dupree further teaches the one container receiving chamber is selected as a function of the determined container load center of gravity (¶¶ 0060, 81-82), which would have been obvious to incorporate for the same reasons as the elements in claim 1 above.
As per claim 15, Rollwa in view of Dupree teaches claim 13 as above. Dupree further teaches before each at least one container is transported to the multiple receiving chambers, the container load center of gravity of each at least one container is determined (¶¶ 0067, 82), which would have been obvious to incorporate for the same reasons as the elements in claim 1 above.
As per claim 16, Rollwa in view of Dupree teaches claim 13 as above. Dupree further teaches the determining of the container load center of gravity comprises determining a weight force at multiple different positions on the at least one container (¶¶ 0046, 54), which would have been obvious to incorporate for the same reasons as the elements in claim 1 above.
As per claim 17, Rollwa in view of Dupree teaches claim 16 as above. Dupree further teaches the determining of the weight force at multiple positions on the at least one container, a total mass of the at least one container is determined (¶¶ 0046, 67), which would have been obvious to incorporate for the same reasons as the elements in claim 1 above.
As per claim 18, Rollwa in view of Dupree teaches claim 13 as above. Dupree further teaches the container load center of gravity of the at least one container load is determined optically (¶¶ 0046, 54, 129), which would have been obvious to incorporate for the same reasons as the elements in claim 1 above.
As per claim 20, Rollwa in view of Dupree teaches claim 1 as above. Rollwa further teaches the loading direction is against a direction of gravity (¶¶ 0033-34).
As per claim 21, Rollwa in view of Dupree teaches claim 13 as above. Rollwa further teaches the loading direction is against a direction of gravity (¶¶ 0033-34).
Claims 2, 6, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rollwa, et al. in view of Dupree, et al. as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, further in view of Turpin, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2019/0016543 (Reference B of the PTO-892 part of paper no. 20251108).
As per claim 2, Rollwa in view of Dupree teaches claim 1 as above. The references do not explicitly teach the determination of the center of gravity of the at least one container includes determining a loading eccentricity of the at least one container; which is taught by Turpin (¶¶ 0067, 81). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element for the same reason it is useful in Turpin—namely, to better model stability for loading plans. This comports with the goals of Dupree to achieve stable loads (see ¶¶ 0060-61, 81-82, 90-91). Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art of transporting and loading items. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
As per claim 6, Rollwa in view of Dupree teaches claim 5 as above. The references do not explicitly teach the device for determining a container load center of gravity is configured to determine a loading eccentricity of the at least one container; which is taught by Turpin (¶¶ 0067, 81) and would have been obvious to incorporate for the same reasons as in claim 2 above.
As per claim 19, Rollwa in view of Dupree teaches claim 5 as above. The references do not explicitly teach determining an eccentricity of the container load center of gravity of the at least one container; and selecting the one container receiving chamber as a function of the determined eccentricity; which is taught by Turpin (¶¶ 0067, 81) and would have been obvious to incorporate for the same reasons as in claim 2 above.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rollwa, et al. in view of Dupree, et al. as applied claim 5 above, further in view of Ranjan, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0197900 (Citation A of the IDS filed 11/2/2023).
As per claim 9, Rollwa in view of Dupree teaches claim 5 as above. Dupree further teaches the device for determining a container load center of gravity comprises at weighing devices (¶¶ 0046, 67), which would have been obvious to incorporate for the same reasons as the elements in claim 1 above. The references do not explicitly teach at least three weighing devices arranged at a distance from one another; which is taught by Ranjan (¶ 0046). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element for the same reason it is useful in Ranjan—namely, to more accurately measure weight and weight distribution. Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art of transporting and loading items. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
As per claim 10, Rollwa in view of Dupree and Ranjan teaches claim 9 as above. Dupree further teaches the device for determining a container load center of gravity comprises weighing devices (¶¶ 0046, 67), which would have been obvious to incorporate for the same reasons as the elements in claim 1 above. The references do not explicitly teach four weighing devices, which are assigned to corners of the at least one container; which is taught by Ranjan (¶ 0046) and would have been obvious to incorporate for the same reasons as in claim 9 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Pidiparthi, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0402133 (Reference B of the attached PTO-892) relates to a block storage arrangement.
Arase, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0260762 (Reference C of the attached PTO-892) relates to a block storage arrangement.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DANIEL VETTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1366. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
/DANIEL VETTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights