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 .
Response to Amendment
In the Amended Claims of October 3, 2025, Claims 28, 29, 31-43 and 48 are pending. Claims 28, 31, 37-38, 41-43 are amended. Claim 48 is new. Claims 44-47 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 28, 29, 31, 32, 36, 42, 43, 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster (US 5642830) in view of Fosnight (US 2019/0047787).
Regarding Claim 28, Foster discloses a storage container comprising a metallic container body including a base portion (14) formed as a single unitary body and having a container bottom wall and upwardly standing base sidewall parts (20) and end wall parts to define a tray (Col. 3 Lines 10-13). Foster also discloses a separate upper portion (40) having upper sidewall parts and end wall parts upwardly extending from and connected to respective base sidewall parts and end wall parts of the base portion to form a box-like structure with an open end for receiving the one or more items within the box-like structure.
While Foster does not disclose a storage and retrieval system containing a track system and grid cells as claimed, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize and find obvious that the containers of Foster may be used in such a system as the metal container of Foster is configured to stack in columns and may be used in such a system. Please also note the discussion in MPEP 2111.02 which discusses whether intended use recitations in the preamble are afforded patentable weight. In the present case, the limitations in the body of Claim 28 do not recite any structural features which limits its use in a storage and retrieval system recited in the preamble. Furthermore, the prior art structure of Foster is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble therefore meets all claim limitations.
Foster does not disclose a rim portion extending around at least a portion of a periphery of the open end of the box-like structure, the rim portion including one or more openings or depressions configured for engagement with a grabber device of a load handling device.
Fosnight discloses a similar tote (102a) which includes slots (120) in a horizontal flange/rim where such openings are configured for engagement with a grabber device (110, 112) of a load handling device. Foster and Fosnight are analogous inventions in the art of storage containers.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the metallic container of Foster with the rim portion having openings as disclosed in Fosnight in order to allow a universal gripper or other automated means to lift and position totes and sub-totes as needed in a distribution center or facility (Paragraphs 0002, 0015).
Regarding Claim 29, while Foster does not disclose the base portion of the metallic container body is formed from a deep drawn sheet metal blank, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize and find obvious that metal base plates are typically made by deep drawing processes as well-known means to form tray-like metal container bottoms. Please see Hoffman (US 1462640) Elements 8 and 9 and the deep-drawing construction described on Page 1 Lines 40-48.
Regarding Claim 31, Fosnight discloses an outwardly tuned projecting lip/flange. Furthermore, as disclosed in Foster, it is known to use such structures to stack containers on top of adjacent containers.
Regarding Claim 32, Foster discloses the upper sidewall parts are separately fixed to the end wall parts by columnar members 30.
Regarding Claim 36, Foster discloses the base portion comprises one or more patterns (16) embossed within the container bottom wall.
Regarding Claim 42, Foster discloses the features as a kit comprising the base portion formed as a single unitary body and having the container bottom wall and the upwardly standing base sidewall parts and end wall parts to define a tray and the separate upper portion including the upper sidewall parts and upper end wall parts. This may be modified as disclosed in Fosnight to include the openings and depressions as discussed above.
Regarding Claims 43 and 48, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize and find obvious that the rim portions of Fosnight may be used in a kit included in the device of Foster. While the rim sections of Fosnight are integral and separate, it is an obvious variation to make a prior art integral structure to be separable for portability or ease of assembly. Please see MPEP 2144.04 Part V Section C.
Claims 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Modified Foster (US 5642830) as applied to claim 32 above, and further in view of Adams (US 2265618).
Regarding Claim 33, Foster discloses the limitations of Claim 32 as disclosed above. While Foster discloses the use of columnar members (30) having slots (38) to join the upper sidewalls to the upper end walls, Foster does not disclose the upper sidewall parts or the upper end wall parts each comprise at least one flange for fixedly connecting the upper sidewall parts to the upper end wall parts.
Adams discloses a similar metallic collapsible container wherein the upper sidewall parts (B) and the end wall parts (C) include flanges (15) for fixedly connecting the panels. Foster and Adams are analogous inventions in the art of collapsible metal containers.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the columnar attachment seen in Foster with the flange attachment seen in Adams as the simple substitution of one known wall attachment means for another that would provide no unexpected results in the assembly of the container.
Regarding Claim 34, Adams discloses each flange (15) is configured to either overlay or underlay an adjacent flange (18) to which it connects.
Regarding Claim 35, Fosnight discloses a similar container (100) with flanged ends at collar (7) which includes guides (140) provided at the top perimeter rim of the tote (Paragraph 0035) which are configured for alignment of a gripper (110) with horizontal pins as seen in Figures 10 and 11.
Claims 37-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Modified Foster (US 5642830) as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Lindbo (US 2020/0017302).
Regarding Claim 37, Foster discloses the limitations of Claim 37 as discussed above. Foster does not disclose a liner comprising a food grade material.
Lindbo discloses a similar container (10) with a food grade plastic liner (5). Foster and Lindbo are analogous inventions in the art of stacking storage containers.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container of Foster with the liner of Lindbo in order to hold liquids or be used with specific contents (Paragraphs 0083-0086, and 0097-0098).
Regarding Claim 38. Lindbo discloses the liner is a food grade plastic material.
Regarding Claim 39, Lindbo discloses the liner is disposable (i.e. single-use).
Regarding Claim 40, Lindbo discloses the liner is a shallow base or tray.
Regarding Claim 41, Lindbo discloses the liner is a leak proof container.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 3, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On Page 10, Applicant argues that Foster is not compatible for use in a grid-based storage system because the receptacle portions (24) of the side walls protrude beyond the footprint of the container.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
There is no reason to believe that the presence of the receptacle portions (24) would preclude the containers of Foster from being arranged in a grid format. The Examiner fully believes that the prior art containers may be placed in a grid cell as claimed simply by adjusting the grid space size.
On Page 11, Applicant argues against the combination of Foster and Fosnight. Applicant believes that the collapsibility feature of Foster requires the container to be collapsible to a maximum extent and still be lightweight. To incorporate a rim with load-manipulating features of Fosnight would reduce the collapsibility of the container, increase the size, and add weight. Furthermore, on Page 12, Applicant argues that to remove the cylindrical portions (24) of Foster to make it compatible with a grid-based storage and retrieval system as discussed in Fosnight would render it inoperable and could no longer function as a container.
The Examiner again disagrees.
As seen in Fosnight, a gripping rim or protrusion may indeed extend outside of the container’s overall footprint, as shown in Figures 6-9 wherein the slots (120) are provided in a horizontal flange extending outwardly outside of the main container body (Paragraph 0029). Therefore, the fact that the container of Foster includes cylindrical portions outside of the container envelope does not preclude the use of the container in a grid-like retrieval system.
Additionally, as discussed in MPEP 2143.01, while incorporating gripper retrieval features as disclosed in Fosnight may impact some of the weight or collapsibility function of Foster, the advantages provided by including such features would not have rendered the functionality of a collapsible container inoperable. Also, any possible effect on weight or collapsibility does not remove the motivation to combine such prior art features common to containers. A given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine (MPEP 2143.01 Section V quoting Medichem S.A v. Rolabo S.L.)
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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 GIDEON R. WEINERTH whose telephone number is (571)270-5121. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-6PM 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, Orlando Aviles can be reached at (571) 270-5531. 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.
/GIDEON R WEINERTH/Examiner, Art Unit 3736