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
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 02/09/2026. Claims 1-11 are cancelled. Claims 12-16 are new. Claims 12-16 remain pending for consideration on the merits.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/09/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 12, Applicant has added the limitation “classifying a plurality of actively cooled totes by determining a cooling level required for each of the plurality of actively cooled totes”. There is nothing in the originally filed claims, specification or drawings to support this newly added limitation. Thus, the newly added limitation is deemed to be NEW MATTER.
Regarding claim 16, Applicant has added the limitation “classifying a plurality of actively cooled totes by determining a cooling level required for each of the plurality of actively cooled totes”. There is nothing in the originally filed claims, specification or drawings to support this newly added limitation. Thus, the newly added limitation is deemed to be NEW MATTER.
Claims 13-15 are rejected based on dependency from a rejected claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 12 and 16 recite “classifying a plurality of actively cooled totes by determining a cooling level required for each of the plurality of actively cooled totes”. However, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claim are. It is unclear to the Examiner how and by what structures explicitly are the actively cooled totes classified. Clarity is advised.
Claims 13-15 are rejected based on dependency from a rejected claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claims 12 and 16, the subject matter which is considered to distinguish from the closest prior art of record, Suzuki (JP 2005321134 A). The prior art of record when considered as a whole, alone, or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “classifying a plurality of actively cooled totes by determining a cooling level required for each of the plurality of actively cooled totes, the cooling levels comprising ambient temperature, refrigerated temperature, and frozen temperature; and determining an arrangement of the plurality of actively cooled totes in the storage area based on the percentage of the plurality of actively cooled totes that have cooling levels of refrigerated or frozen temperature verses the percentage of the plurality of actively cooled totes that have cooling levels of ambient temperature, wherein the arrangement reduces re-entrainment of hot exhaust air into each of the plurality of actively cooled totes and reduces a column of the hot exhaust air formed in the storage area”. The closest prior art, Suzuki teaches a cold insulating box 1 in a substantially boxed shape for cold-insulating bottles filled with drink comprises a temperature control part 4 in an approximate L- or inverted-L-shape ranging from the bottom face to the side face of a body 2 with a door 3 as the front face and extending to a height not reaching the upper face. The temperature control part 4 has one of a suction port 6 for sucking outside air or an exhaust port 5 arranged in the front on the bottom face side and the other arranged in the upper part on the side face side.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARIO DELEON whose telephone number is (571)272-8687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Jerry Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 571-270-5054. 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.
/DARIO ANTONIO DELEON/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763