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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 16-26 and 28 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 27 October 2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 27 October 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claims 16-26 and 28 depend from claim 1 and applicant purports claim 1 to be allowable. This is not found persuasive because applicant’s argument regarding the patentability is directed to limitations not found in claim 1, i.e. the % of magnesium hydroxide used in the fire retardant agent. In addition, claim 16 does not require all the particulars of claim 1 since claim 16 only requires that the storage container be configured for combination (i.e. use) with the storage system of claim 1.
Applicant also argues against the restriction requirement citing restriction practice for applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111, yet this application is filed under 35 U.S.C. 371 and is restricted according to the “Unity of Invention” requirement, see MPEO 1850, section I.
With this in mind, applicant’s argument is not found persuasive. Furthermore, claim 1 is not allowable, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindbo et al. (US 2017/0129703) in view of Overholt et al. (US 2004/0171731), herein.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 12 be found allowable, claim 27 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
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) 1-4, 7-15 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindbo et al. (US 2017/0129703) in view of Overholt et al. (US 2004/0171731).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 13, Lindbo discloses, fig. 1 and 4
a plurality of grid members arranged in a grid pattern 14 to form a grid structure including a plurality of grid cells;
one or more stacks of storage containers (bins 10), wherein each stack is located vertically below a respective grid cell, and each storage container in each stack is made of a non-disclosed material; and
at least one load handling device including a grabber device (robotic load handling device 30), fig. 3(a) and 3(b) operative to move on the grid structure to releasably grab one or more of the storage containers from each stack in the storage system [0018], [0031].
Lindbo does not disclose what material is used for making the storage containers.
Overholt is analogous art in regard to equipment, a pallet, for handling the storage and transport of large numbers of items. The pallet of Overholt is made from an injection molded [0011] (claim 13) thermoplastic polyolefin (claim 7) such as polyethylene or polypropylene (claim 8) [0018] comprising magnesium hydroxide for the purpose of providing flame retardant properties [0012], [0020]. Overholt cites the problem of polymer pallets provide more potential energy and could burn downwardly from drips in addition to burning upwardly as wood does and that it is necessary to minimize the combustibles and heat release and lower the flame spread of polymer pallets [0005-0006].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the storage containers of Lindbo to be made from injection molded thermoplastic polymers combined with magnesium hydroxide for the purpose of providing flame retardant properties as per the teaching of Overholt.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Overholt further discloses that the amount of magnesium hydroxide should be from 8 to 35% magnesium hydroxide [0020] which overlaps the range claimed in claims 3 and 4, 20-55% and 30-50% respectively. With this in mind, it would be obvious to use an amount of magnesium hydroxide within the claimed range such as 30-35% magnesium hydroxide as taught by Overholt in the shipping container of Lindbo as modified above in order for the shipping container to have the required flame retardant properties as per the teaching of Overholt.
Regarding claim 9, the references applied above teach all of claim 8, as applied above. The references applied above do not specifically teach high-density polyethylene, only polyethylene in general, (see Overholt [0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material of Lindbo as modified above to specifically use high-density type of polyethylene in order to provide the shipping container with a high strength-to-density ratio, a known property of HDPE.
Regarding claim 10, Overholt further discloses using a material that consists essentially of thermoplastic and magnesium hydroxide, [0012] “polyolefin is compounded with a fire retardant package comprising minimally magnesium hydroxide,” in other words, the only materials used are the polyolefin (thermoplastic) and magnesium hydroxide in order to provide the flame retardant properties as per the teaching of Overholt.
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the material of Lindbo as modified above essentially consist of polyolefin and magnesium hydroxide in order to ensure that the container has flame retardant properties as taught by Overholt.
Regarding claim 11, the references applied above teach all of claim 1, as applied above. Overholt further teaches the use of one or more impact modifiers [0019] for the purpose of reinforcing the material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include impact modifiers in the material of Lindbo as modified above in order to reinforce (i.e. strengthen) the material as per the teaching of Overholt
Regarding claims 12 and 27, Lindbo discloses, fig. 3b and 3c, the storage container comprises one or more sidewalls at 106, wherein the sidewalls are shown as non-perforated.
Regarding claim 14, Lindbo discloses a plurality of upright columns 16 supporting the grid structure from below and arranged to form a plurality of vertical storage locations for each stack of storage containers [0030], fig. 1.
Regarding claim 15, Lindbo discloses a horizontal gap between stacks of storage containers in adjacent grid cells is at least approximately 50 mm, [0047]: “the space between stacks is 100 mm.”
Claim(s) 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindbo and Overholt as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Tang et al., “effect of Magnesium Hydroxide on the Flame Retardant Properties of Unsaturated Polyester Resin” from Procedia Engineering 52, 2013, provided on applicant’s IDS.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, the references applied above teach all of claim 4, as applied above. The references applied above do not teach approximately 45 wt.% magnesium hydroxide. However, Tang shows that it is known to use 45% magnesium hydroxide and that 45% magnesium hydroxide provides a larger peak heat release rate (see abstract).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the amount of magnesium hydroxide used for the material of Lindbo as modified above in order to modify the heat release rate of the material as required for the intended use as a matter of design choice.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOLLIE L IMPINK whose telephone number is (571)270-1705. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7:30-3:30).
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571) 272-4561. 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.
MOLLIE LLEWELLYN IMPINK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3799
/MOLLIE IMPINK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799