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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 15 – 20 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: The originally presented invention and the invention of the newly submitted claims are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case the cart may be used in a method that does not include the step of maintaining a temperature-controlled environment within at least one cooled tote.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 15 – 20 have been withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 13 is 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.
Claim 13 recites a proximity switch “to detect the presence of the transportation cart and a contactor configured to control power delivery to the transportation cart”. However, claim 1, from which claim 13 depends, recites a power subsystem disposed on the cart. Therefore, the purpose of a switch detecting the presence of a cart is unclear. Furthermore, claim 1 recites a battery mounted to the cart; therefore, the source of “power delivery to the cart” in claim 13 is undefined.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexander et al. (WO 2022/104318 A1) in view of Fieldbinder et al. (US 2022/0102995 A1).
As for claim 1, Alexander et al. disclose a system (Fig. 19) for providing power to one or more cooled totes (1000), comprising: one or more tote placement locations (520A, 520B); a power interface (534) at each of the one or more tote placement locations configured to deliver power to a cooled tote positioned at the tote placement location and a power subsystem for providing distributing power from the battery to at least one of the one or more tote placement locations (paragraph [0156]).
Alexander et al. do not disclose a cart with wheels. Fieldbinder et al. disclose a cart with wheels (Fig. 39) and a battery mounted to the transportation cart for storing power (paragraphs [0329] and [0339]). Said cart comprises power interfaces at locations configured to deliver power from the cart battery to devices positioned at the locations and a power subsystem for providing distributing power from the cart battery to at least one of the one or more locations. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the system of Alexander et al. in combination with a wheeled cart, as Alexander et al. suggest a portable power source (paragraph [0090]).
As for claims 2 and 3, Alexander et al. disclose an electrical contact (534) to provide power to a cooled tote. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a well-known type of plug as a matter of obvious design choice.
As for claims 4, 5, and 7, Alexander et al. disclose wireless power (paragraph [0061]), the one or more tote placement locations are only powered if a cooled tote is interfaced with the tote placement location, and providing different amounts of power depending on the cooled tote associated with the one or more tote placement locations (Fig. 38). Also see Fieldbinder et al. (paragraphs [0250] – [0255]).
As for claim 6, Alexander et al. disclose a communication interface to a temperature of one or more totes on the one or more tote placement locations (paragraph [[0076]). Also see Fieldbinder et al. (Figs. 28 – 31).
As for claims 8 – 10, Alexander et al. disclose at least six totes. Fieldbinder et al. disclose multiple charging locations. It would have been obvious to select an appropriate number of tote placement locations for the intended use.
As for claims 11 – 13, it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. Copper contacts are old and well-known in the art. Alexander et al. discloses magnets (paragraph [0022]) and a power subsystem configured to control power delivery (Fig. 38). Also see Fieldbinder et al. (paragraph [0164]).
As for claim 14, Alexander et al. disclose a thermoelectric heat pump configured to pull heat from an enclosed chamber and reject the heat to surrounding ambient (220, paragraph [0079]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 – 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 Katy M Ebner whose telephone number is (571)272-5830. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 9 a.m. - 3 p.m.
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, J. Allen Shriver can be reached at (303)297-4337. 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.
/Katy M Ebner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613
