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 .
The amendment filed 6/11/2026 has been entered.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7 and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 7,861,863 (Meissen, of record) in view of US Patent No. 6,305,532 (Overkamp, of record), US Patent No. 4,441,615 (Goodrich hereinafter) and US Patent No. 3,937,356 (Schmidt, Sr. et al. of record).
In re claim 1, with reference to Figs. 1-3, Meissen discloses: A storage container (10) comprising: a base (12); two first parallel side walls (14, 16); two second parallel side walls (18, 20) perpendicular to the two first parallel side walls; a top opening; and two side openings (24), to allow one or more items to be unloaded from the storage container or loaded into the storage container through one of the side openings at an unloading station or at a loading station (column 2, lines 46-48); wherein the storage container is configured for storing product items in a storage and retrieval system and provided with a restraint (lip 27) which is arranged to restrain movement of the one or more items from exiting through one of the side openings during transportation of the storage container to the unloading or loading station; wherein the restraint comprises a lip (27) protruding upwardly from the base at a lower edge of one of the side openings (see Fig. 1); wherein the storage container is configured to be received by a container carrier comprising carrier side walls, the carrier side walls having at least one carrier side wall opening; and wherein the lip is inclined or curved to extend between the base and a lower edge of the at least one carrier side wall opening in a direction perpendicular to the first parallel side walls, the incline or curve of the lip facilitating pushing of the product items over the lip on unloading or loading (note that the purpose of the lip is to ultimately prevent pushing of product items out of or into the container, and therefore the slight incline of the lip of Meissen is considered to facilitate loading/unloading in as much as is disclosed by the Applicant, in that a vertical lip or a taller lip would further inhibit pushing/loading, and therefore the shorter and inclined lip of Meissen is considered to provide relative facilitation thereof).
It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed (i.e. “for storing product items in an automated storage and retrieval system, the automated storage and retrieval system comprising a plurality of grid cells, each having a cell width between 30 centimeters and 150 centimeters”, and “wherein the storage container is configured to be received by a container carrier comprising carrier side walls, the carrier side walls having at least one carrier side wall opening”, and “to allow product items to be pushed over the lip at the unloading or loading station”) does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus (i.e. the claimed storage container) satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114, II.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Curved Lip)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
502
788
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Meissen fails to disclose the height range of the lip being 0.5-20 mm.
However, with reference to Figs. 1-2, Overkamp discloses a tray having a lip (30) of a height of approximately ¼ inch (~6.35 mm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have defined the lip of Meissen to have been approximately ¼ inch (~6.35 mm) as taught by Overkamp since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, page 22, lines 11-16, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Meissen in view of Overkamp fails to disclose wherein the lip is curved along the length of the lower edge of the side opening whereby the curve extends between the base and a lower edge of the at least one carrier side wall opening in a direction perpendicular to the first parallel side walls.
However, with reference to Fig. 5 below, Schmidt, Sr. et al. discloses a food products vessel (Title, element 12) having a smooth rounded edge (42) extending a length of a wall (16), ensuring that the edge does not present a safety hazard to personnel during operational use of a food products vessel equipped with the smooth structure (Schmidt, Sr. et al. column 2, lines 37-41 and column 5, lines 28-32).
[AltContent: textbox (Curved Lip)]
[AltContent: oval][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
276
281
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
255
173
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the profile of the lip of Meissen in view of Overkamp to have been curved in a direction to provide a smooth continuous rounded surface along the length of the lip for the purposes of ensuring that the edge does not present a safety hazard to personnel during operational use of a food products vessel equipped with the smooth structure (Schmidt, Sr. et al. column 2, lines 37-41 and column 5, lines 28-32).
Meissen in view of Overkamp and Schmidt, Sr. et al. fail to disclose that the size of the tray is capable of fulfilling the function of fitting into an unclaimed automated storage and retrieval system having cells of a certain size range.
However, Goodrich discloses bakery trays and baskets which are “about 20-22 inches in width, 26-30 inches in length” and is capable of fulfilling the function of being handled by/in automatic handling systems (column 1, lines 46-62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have formed the container of Meissen in view of Overkamp and Schmidt, Sr. et al. of a common size which can be used in manual or automatic handling systems as taught by Goodrich, since it has been held that the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04 IV, A).
In re claim 3, with reference to the Figs. Noted above, Meissen in view of Overkamp, Goodrich and Schmidt, Sr. et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein the lip is continuous, intermittent or broken (See Fig. 1, lip 27 is continuous between corners 32-38).
In re claim 7, with reference to the Figs. Noted above, Meissen in view of Overkamp, Goodrich and Schmidt, Sr. et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein the restraint comprises a profile provided in an upper surface of the base (i.e. lip 27 protrudes upwards from base and has a profile, see Fig. 1 above)
In re claim 11, with reference to the Figs. Noted above, Meissen in view of Overkamp, Goodrich and Schmidt, Sr. et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein the storage container is made of moulded plastic (Meissen, column 4, lines 34-38).
In re claim 12, with reference to the Figs. Noted above, Meissen in view of Overkamp, Goodrich and Schmidt, Sr. et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein the storage container comprises an array of moulded ribs (i.e. which form openings 33, see Fig. 1), allowing the load of the product items carried by the base to be transferred into the side walls and further to the top of the side walls (since the container of Meissen is of one piece construction, loaded contents will be distribute force to the entire apparatus, including the top of the sidewalls).
In re claim 13, with reference to the Figs. Noted above, Meissen in view of Overkamp, Goodrich and Schmidt, Sr. et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein the storage container comprises an upper vehicle connection interface (note that the bottom surface of the base 12 is capable of interfacing with an upper surface of a vehicle, e.g. a forklift or pallet vehicle).
In re claim 14, with reference to the Figs. Noted above, Meissen in view of Overkamp, Goodrich and Schmidt, Sr. et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein the storage container comprises lower and upper stacking interfaces (41, 52, see Fig. 1 and 3) for allowing the storage container to be stacked in a stack together with other storage containers.
In re claim 15 with reference to the Figs. Noted above, Meissen in view of Overkamp, Goodrich and Schmidt, Sr. et al. discloses: A storage container, wherein the storage container comprising: a base; two first parallel side walls; two second parallel side walls perpendicular to the two first parallel side walls; a top opening; and two side openings, to allow one or more items to be unloaded from the storage container or loaded into the storage container through one of the side openings at an unloading station or at a loading station; wherein the storage container is configured for storing product items in an automated storage and retrieval system and provided with a restraint which is arranged to restrain movement of the one or more items from exiting through one of the side openings during transportation of the storage container to the unloading or loading station; wherein the restraint comprises a lip protruding upwardly from the base at a lower edge of one of the side openings and extending along the length of the lower edge of the side opening; wherein the lip has a height between .5 millimeters and 20 millimeters; wherein the storage container is configured to be received by a container carrier comprising carrier side walls, the carrier side walls having at least one carrier side wall opening aligned with at least one of the two side openings; and wherein the lip is inclined or curved in a direction perpendicular to the first parallel side and extends between the base and a lower edge of the at least one carrier side wall opening, the incline or curve of the lip facilitating pushing of the product items over the lip on unloading or loading (as in re claim 1 above).
It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed (i.e. “for storing product items in an automated storage and retrieval system, the automated storage and retrieval system comprising a plurality of grid cells, each having a cell width between 30 centimeters and 150 centimeters”, and “wherein the storage container is configured to be received by a container carrier comprising carrier side walls, the carrier side walls having at least one carrier side wall opening”, and “to allow product items to be pushed over the lip at the unloading or loading station”) does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus (i.e. the claimed storage container) satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114, II.
Claim(s) 8, 9, 10, 17, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meissen in view of Overkamp, Goodrich and Schmidt, Sr. et al. as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Webb (of record).
In re claim 17, with reference to Figs. 1-3, Meissen in view of Overkamp, Goodrich and Schmidt, Sr. et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein the restraint comprises a lip protruding upwardly from the base at a lower edge of one of the side openings (as in re claim 1 above); but fails to disclose wherein the restraint comprises an elevatable floor movably connected to the base of the storage container by means of a plurality of legs accessible from below the storage container between: a lower position, arranged to restrain movement of the one or more items from exiting through one of the side openings during transportation of the storage container to the unloading or loading station; and an upper position, arranged not to restrain movement of one or more items from exiting through one of the side openings at the unloading or loading station, and wherein the elevatable floor comprises apertures and the storage container comprises friction increasing members positioned in the apertures, where: in the lower position, the elevatable floor is vertically aligned with, or lower than the friction increasing members; in the upper position, the elevatable floor is higher than the friction increasing members.
However, with reference to Figs. 2-4, Webb discloses a floor assembly which comprises an elevatable floor (5) movably connected to the base of the storage container by means of a plurality of legs accessible from below the storage container (i.e. at elements 6 and 7) between: a lower position, arranged to restrain movement of the one or more items (see Fig. 4); and an upper position, arranged not to restrain movement of one or more items (see Fig. 2), and wherein the elevatable floor comprises apertures and the storage container comprises friction increasing members (3) positioned in the apertures, where; in the lower position, the elevatable floor is vertically aligned with, or lower than the friction increasing members (see Fig. 4); in the upper position, the elevatable floor is higher than the friction increasing members (See Fig. 2).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Stop)][AltContent: textbox (Lip, see in re claim 8)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image4.png
532
540
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the floor of the apparatus of Meissen in view of Overkamp and Schmidt, Sr. et al. to have included an elevatable floor as taught by Webb for the purposes of facilitating movement of the contents of the container when desired and restraining the contents against movement when desired (columns 3-4, lines 60-2).
In re claims 18 with reference to the Figs. Noted above, Meissen in view of Overkamp, Goodrich and Schmidt, Sr. et al. disclose the claimed invention including wherein the plurality of legs comprises a stop for limiting a vertical movement of the elevatable floor in relation to the base (See Fig. 3 above).
In re claims 19 with reference to the Figs. Noted above, Meissen in view of Overkamp, Goodrich and Schmidt, Sr. et al. disclose the claimed invention except wherein the restraint comprises an elevatable floor movably connected to the storage container between: a lower position, arranged to restrain movement of the one or more items from exiting through one of the side openings during transportation of the storage container to the unloading or loading station; and an upper position, arranged not to restrain movement of one or more items from exiting through one of the side openings at the unloading or loading station, and wherein the elevatable floor comprises apertures and the storage container comprises friction increasing members positioned in the apertures, where; in the lower position, the elevatable floor is vertically aligned with, or lower than the friction increasing members; and in the upper position, the elevatable floor is higher than the friction increasing members.
However, with reference to Figs. 2-4, Webb discloses a floor assembly which comprises an elevatable floor (5) movably connected to the base of the storage container by means of a plurality of legs accessible from below the storage container (i.e. at elements 6 and 7) between: a lower position, arranged to restrain movement of the one or more items (see Fig. 4); and an upper position, arranged not to restrain movement of one or more items (see Fig. 2), and wherein the elevatable floor comprises apertures and the storage container comprises friction increasing members (3) positioned in the apertures, where; in the lower position, the elevatable floor is vertically aligned with, or lower than the friction increasing members (see Fig. 4); in the upper position, the elevatable floor is higher than the friction increasing members (See Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the floor of the apparatus of Meissen in view of Overkamp, Goodrich and Schmidt, Sr. et al. to have included an elevatable floor as taught by Webb for the purposes of facilitating movement of the contents of the container when desired and restraining the contents against movement when desired (columns 3-4, lines 60-2).
In re claims 8 and 9, with reference to Figs. 1-3, Meissen, Goodrich in view of Overkamp, Goodrich discloses the claimed invention except wherein the restraint comprises an elevatable floor movably connected to the storage container between a lower position, arranged to restrain movement of the one or more items from exiting through one of the side openings during transportation of the storage container to the unloading or loading station, and an upper position, arranged not to restrain movement of one or more items from exiting through one of the side openings at the unloading or loading station; wherein the elevatable floor comprises apertures and the storage container comprises friction increasing members positioned in the apertures, and: in the lower position, the elevatable floor is vertically aligned with, or lower than the friction increasing members; and in the upper position, the elevatable floor is higher than the friction increasing members. in the lower position, the elevatable floor is lower than the upwardly protruding lip; in the upper position, the elevatable floor is vertically aligned with, or higher than the upwardly protruding lip.
However, with reference to Figs. 2-4, Webb discloses a floor assembly which comprises an elevatable floor (5) movably connected to the base of the storage container by means of a plurality of legs accessible from below the storage container (i.e. at elements 6 and 7) between: a lower position, arranged to restrain movement of the one or more items (see Fig. 4); and an upper position, arranged not to restrain movement of one or more items (see Fig. 2), and wherein the elevatable floor comprises apertures and the storage container comprises friction increasing members (3) positioned in the apertures, where; in the lower position, the elevatable floor is vertically aligned with, or lower than the friction increasing members (see Fig. 4); in the upper position, the elevatable floor is higher than the friction increasing members (See Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the floor of the apparatus of Meissen in view of Overkamp, Goodrich and Schmidt, Sr. et al. to have included an elevatable floor as taught by Webb for the purposes of facilitating movement of the contents of the container when desired and restraining the contents against movement when desired (columns 3-4, lines 60-2).
In re claim 10 with reference to the Figs. Noted above, Meissen in view of Overkamp, Goodrich, Schmidt, Sr. et al. and Webb disclose the claimed invention including wherein the plurality of legs comprises a stop for limiting the vertical movement of the elevatable floor in relation to the base (see Fig. 3 above).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meissen in view of Overkamp, Goodrich and Schmidt, Sr. et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 8,047,369 (Stahl hereinafter).
In re claim 4, with reference to the Figs. Noted above, Meissen disclose the claimed invention except wherein the lip is movably connected to the base, and where the lip is configured to be in one of the following positions: an elevated position arranged to restrain movement of the one or more items from exiting through one of the side openings during transportation of the storage container to the unloading or loading station; a lowered position arranged not to restrain movement of one or more items at the unloading or loading station.
However, with reference to Fig. 42, Stahl discloses a container (10) wherein a lip (196) is movably connected to a base, and where the lip is configured to be in one of the following positions: an elevated position arranged to restrain movement of the one or more items; a lowered position arranged not to restrain movement of one or more items (column 22, lines 19-30).
PNG
media_image5.png
278
582
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the lip of Meissen in view of Overkamp, Goodrich and Schmidt, Sr. et al. to have included a movable side flap/lip as taught by Stahl for the purposes of facilitating transport and unloading of contents of the container as necessary (“side flap 196 is used to enclose baked goods in interior area 19 of basket 10 when transported. After basket 10 is located in the place where consumers will obtain the baked goods, side flap 196 is preferably moved from a closed position”, see Stahl, column 22, lines 19-30).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meissen in view of Overkamp, Goodrich and Schmidt, Sr. et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 3,792,809 (Schneider et al. hereinafter).
In re claim 6, with reference to the Figs. Noted above, Meissen in view of Overkamp, Goodrich and Schmidt, Sr. et al. disclose the claimed invention except wherein the restraint comprises a friction increasing material for increasing friction between the one or more product items and an upper surface of the base.
However, with reference to Fig. 1, Schneider et al. discloses a storage tray which uses a restraint system wherein the restraint comprises a friction increasing material for increasing friction between one or more product items and an upper surface of a base (column 2, lines 3-8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified Meissen in view of Overkamp, Goodrich and Schmidt, Sr. et al. to have included friction increasing material as taught by Schneider et al. on the surface of the container for the purposes of preventing items from slipping about on the container (Schneider column 2, lines 3-8).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Meissen in view of Overkamp and Schmidt Sr., et al. fail to disclose the intended use of the container in an unclaimed automated storage and retrieval system having cells of a certain size, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Applicant has not positively recited the automated system as part of the container, therefore, since the claims are drawn to the container, the system in which it is intended to be used does not form any structural claimed feature of the invention. Note that Applicant has not claimed that the storage container is to fit within the grid cell(s) of the automated system, or what, if any relationship there is between the container size and the storage system grid cell size in the claims.
Applicant argues that the claimed lip has a different purpose (i.e. as a ramp). However, the prior art as combined teaches the claimed structure, and therefore utilization of the claimed feature as a ramp/restraint purely up to the intended use of the device, and does not provide any additional structural limitation to the claim.
In response to applicant's argument that the food trays of Meissen, Overkamp, Goodrich, and Schmidt are nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the trays move goods between stations for convenient handling by a user or automated system and the above combinations teach the claimed features/dimensions for such use.
In response to Applicant’s speculation that Goodrich does not teach use of the tray in an automated system, it has been previous cited that: “Bakery trays and baskets are employed in the manufacturing plant to contain and transport product on conveyor lines and in mobile carts known as halfracks. They are also used in automatic and manual handling systems at the shipping docks at the plant.” Goodrich column 1, lines 58-62.
In response to applicant's argument that the claimed containers are sized to be used for a certain purpose, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious (i.e. that trays can be that size regardless of what system in which they are intended to be used). See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW T KIRSCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5723. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9a-5p 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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at 571-270-5055. 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.
/ANDREW T KIRSCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights