DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 6-9, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindbo et al. (US 9682822) in view of Katsuki (CA 2193050).
Regarding claims 1, 6-9, 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 operative to move on the grid structure to releasably grab one or more of the storage containers from each stack in the storage system, col. 11: 27-41.
In addition, Lindbo discloses that the items stored may be vegetables or perishables, col. 2: 1-5 and 20-25.
Lindbo does not disclose what material is used for making the storage containers.
Katsuki solves the same problem as the instant application, providing a thermoplastic resin in combination with essentially magnesium hydroxide in a relatively large amount in order to provide a flame retardant material that has sufficient strength and mouldability pages 2-3. Katsuki teaches a flame retardant material having magnesium hydroxide particles in the amount of 20 to 70% by weight base on the total particles in a resin, page 8: 1-5, which resin may be selected from a wide variety of resins, including polypropylene, polyethylene, or polyolefin, high-density polyethylene, page 8: 25-35.
Katsuki teaches that previously, high amounts of magnesium hydroxide were required to meet flame retardant requirements but that large amounts of magnesium hydroxide deteriorates the molded article and physical properties, page 2: 30-end, page 3: 1-2, yet has found that particularly pure magnesium hydroxide particles of a certain diameter will yield both high moldability, outer appearance, mechanical strength, and flame retardancy, page 5: 30-end.
The material taught by Katsuki consists essentially of thermoplastic (resin) and magnesium hydroxide because Katsuki teaches that the magnesium hydroxide should be relatively pure, page 3: 9-20.
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 undisclosed material of Lindbo to be made from a material having 20 to 70% magnesium hydroxide by weight in order to produce a material that can be molded with high mechanical strength and flame retardancy.
Applicant’s claimed amount of magnesium hydroxide falls within the amount of magnesium hydroxide of the material of Lindbo as modified above. With this in mind, it would be obvious to use the material taught by Katsuki having amount of magnesium hydroxide within the range of 20 to 70% or a smaller range of 40 to 50% or specifically 45% in order to adjust the material to provide the desired amount of both flame retardancy and high mechanical strength as taught by Katsuki.
As applied above, Lindbo teaches that the containers hold vegetables, for example. Katsuki teaches a wide range of thermoplastics, and teaches at least all thermoplastics recited in dependent claims 7-9 of the instant application, which are assumed to be food grade in accordance with the requirements of claim 1.
With this in mind, Lindbo as modified above teaches the same claimed material and the same material has the same properties. In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a thermoplastic for the material in Lindbo’s container that is food safe within any required safety regulation requirements in order to allow the container of Lindbo to safely hold food such as vegetables.
Regarding claim 11, the references applied above teach all of claim 1, as applied above. Katsuki further teaches the use of impact resistant grade polypropylene, page 13: 8-9.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specifically choose a material that is impact resistant grade in Lindbo as modified above by Katsuki by whatever modifier required to form an impact resistant thermoplastic in order to provide impact resistance for protecting the materials housed within the container of Lindbo.
Regarding claim 12, Lindbo discloses, fig. 3, the storage container comprises one or more sidewalls at 10, wherein the sidewalls are shown as non-perforated.
Regarding claim 13, Lindbo teaches all of claim 1, as applied above. Lindbo does not disclose any particular molding method. However, Katsuki further teaches that the material can be injection molded, page 13: 20-25.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the container of Lindbo via injection molding or any other molding technique with the same reasonable expectation of providing a container made from the material that is both strong and has flame retarding characteristics as applied above.
Regarding claim 14, Lindbo discloses a plurality of upright columns/members 16 supporting the grid structure from below and arranged to form a plurality of vertical storage locations for each stack of storage containers, col. 2: 49-55, fig. 1.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindbo and Katsuki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lindbo et al. (US 20170129703).
Regarding claim 15, the references applied above teach all of claim 1, as applied above. The references applied above, Lindbo ‘822 further discloses a space or gap between containers but no specific gap size, col. 8: 1-5, col. 14: 10-15.
Lindbo ‘703 teaches 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.”
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 space between containers of Lindbo ‘822 provide space of 100 mm for a large load handling device (robotic handling device) as per the teaching of Lindbo ‘703, [0041] and [0047].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference or combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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
Prosecution Insights