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 .
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.
Claims 21, 22, 25-29, 31-34, 36 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent # 8,484,929 to Begdouri in view of US Patent Application Publication # 2009/0101446 to Franchi.
Regarding claim 21, Begdouri teaches in Figure 6, a storage facility (Column 1, Lines 19-20), comprising: a plurality of standard commercial shipping containers (Column 2, Lines 44-45) located at a single facility (Column 1, Line 44), wherein Figures 1 and 2 show each standard commercial shipping container (10) (Column 2, Line 46) in the plurality of standard commercial shipping containers includes a first corrugated sidewall (40), and a second corrugated sidewall (50); wherein Figure 6 shows a subset of the plurality of standard commercial shipping containers provide load bearing support (Column 1, Line 54) to one or more levels of stacked (Column 2, Line 45) standard commercial shipping containers; and a plurality of hallways (140) (Column 3, Lines 23-24) permitting access to the one or more of the plurality of standard commercial shipping containers. Begdouri does not teach at least one dividing wall within an interior of one or more of the plurality of standard commercial shipping containers. However, Franchi teaches in Figure 2, a container (10) that has at least one dividing wall within an interior of the container defining the interior into a plurality of storage volumes (16 and 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Begdouri with Franchi and have a reasonable expectation of success because Begdouri teaches the dividing wall divides the container into two zones each having their own purpose (Paragraph 0014).
Regarding claim 22, Begdouri in view of Franchi teach a storage facility. Furthermore, Begdouri teaches in Figure 6, the one or more levels (Column 2, Line 45) of standard commercial shipping containers and a second level of standard commercial shipping containers supported above by the first level of standard commercial shipping containers.
Regarding claim 25, Begdouri in view of Franchi teach a storage facility. Furthermore, Begdouri teaches in Figure 8, the plurality of standard commercial shipping load-bearing containers (Column 1, Line 54) comprises a third level of standard commercial shipping containers supported above and by a second level.
Regarding claim 26, Begdouri in view of Franchi teach a storage facility. Furthermore, Begdouri teaches in Figures 8 and 9, a ground level area (210) devoid of obstruction and sufficient dimension to facilitate a drive thru lane [for forklift (Line 2, Line 55)] between selected ones of the standard commercial shipping containers and extending from a first end of the facility to a second end of the facility.
Regarding claim 27, Begdouri in view of Franchi teach a storage facility. Furthermore, Begdouri teaches in Figure 8, at least one standard commercial shipping container supported directly above the drive-thru lane.
Regarding claim 28, Begdouri in view of Franchi teach a storage facility. Furthermore, Begdouri teaches in Figure 8, the least one standard commercial shipping container supported directly above the drive-thru lane is supported by containers laterally separated to the sides of the drive-thru lane.
Regarding claim 29, Begdouri in view of Franchi teach a storage facility. Furthermore, Begdouri teaches in Figure 6, a ceiling (30r) above and positioned to shield an uppermost level of the plurality of standard commercial shipping containers.
Regarding claim 31, Begdouri in view of Franchi teach a storage facility. Furthermore, Begdouri teaches in Figures 1 and 2, selected standard commercial shipping containers (10) of the plurality of standard commercial shipping containers includes access [sidewall is removed (Column 2, Lines 62-63)] to an interior of each of the selected standard commercial shipping containers (10) through a sidewall (40) of the selected respective standard commercial shipping container (10).
Regarding claim 32, Begdouri in view of Franchi teach a storage facility. Furthermore, Begdouri teaches in Figure 6, selected hallways in the plurality of hallways (140) are positioned between respective standard commercial shipping containers in the plurality of standard commercial shipping containers.
Regarding claim 33, Begdouri in view of Franchi teach a storage facility. Furthermore, Begdouri teaches in Figure 6, the selected hallways (140) each comprise a flooring material (70, Fig 2) [bottom of container (Column 2, Line 48)] suspended between a first standard commercial shipping container and a second standard commercial shipping container.
Regarding claim 34, Begdouri in view of Franchi teach a storage facility. Furthermore, Begdouri teaches in Figure 6, the selected hallways in the plurality of hallways (140) are positioned within interiors of standard commercial shipping containers (Column 3, Lines 23-24) in the plurality of standard commercial shipping containers.
Regarding claim 36, Begdouri in view of Franchi teach a storage facility but they are silent about how many containers there are at the storage facility. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to comprise at least 300 containers depending on the demand of storage customers. Note that those of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a modification such as a mere change in size of a component would be obvious. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). See also, MPEP § 2144.04 which states: In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)
Regarding claim 37, Begdouri in view of Franchi teach a storage facility. Furthermore, Begdouri teaches in Figure 6, a climate controlled enclosure (Column 3, Lines 20-21) comprising a skin (30r, 40r and 50r) and providing a volume around the plurality of standard commercial shipping containers (Column 3, Lines 26-28).
Claims 23, 24 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent # 8,484,929 to Begdouri in view of US Patent Application Publication # 2009/0101446 to Franchi in further view of US Patent Application Publication # 2015/0266616 to Barrable.
Regarding claim 23, Begdouri in view of Franchi teach a storage facility but do not teach spacers between containers of the first level and second level. However, Barrable teaches in Figure 1, a plurality of spacers (16) [corner blocks (Paragraph 0043)] between a selected standard commercial shipping container (14) in the second level and a selected standard commercial shipping container (12) in the first level. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Begdouri and Franchi with Barrable and have a reasonable expectation of success because Barrable teaches the corner blocks align stacked containers together (Paragraph 0045).
Regarding claim 24, Begdouri in view of Franchi teach a storage facility but do not teach spacers between respective corner blocks. However, Barrable teaches in Figures 1 and 3, a plurality of spacers (24) [weld plates (Paragraph 0057)] between respective corner blocks (16) (Paragraph 0043) in a lower set of corner blocks (16) in a selected standard commercial shipping container (14) in the second level and respective corner blocks (16) in an upper set of corner blocks (16) in a selected standard commercial shipping container (12) in the first level. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Begdouri and Franchi with Barrable and have a reasonable expectation of success because Barrable teaches the spacers are weld plates thus allowing containers of the first level and the second level to be joined together (Paragraph 0052).
Regarding claim 35, Begdouri in view of Franchi teach a storage facility. Furthermore, Begdouri teaches in Figure 6, the plurality of standard commercial shipping containers comprises a first standard commercial shipping container and a second standard commercial shipping container, wherein a major axis of the first standard commercial shipping container is aligned (Paragraph 2, Line 45) parallel to a major axis of the second standard commercial shipping container but they do not teach the first container comprises first and second corner casting blocks welded to and abutting a first and a second corner casting block of the second container. However, Barrable teaches in Figures 1 and 3, a first container (12) comprises first and second corner casting blocks (16) (Paragraph 0043) welded to (Paragraph 0018) and abutting a first and second corner casting block (16) of a second standard commercial shipping container (14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Begdouri and Franchi with Barrable and have a reasonable expectation of success because Barrable teaches the welded corner casting blocks allow containers of the first level and the second level to be joined together (Paragraph 0052).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent # 8,484,929 to Begdouri in view of US Patent Application Publication # 2009/0101446 to Franchi in further view of US Patent Application Publication # 2016/0130795 to Downey.
Regarding claim 30, Begdouri in view of Franchi teach a storage facility but do not teach purlins supporting the ceiling. However, Downey teaches in Figure 10, purlins (45) [truss (Paragraph 0043)] supporting a ceiling [roof (Paragraph 0043)], wherein the purlins (45) are positioned on top of a plurality of containers (10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Begdouri and Franchi with Downey with a reasonable expectation of success because Downey teaches the purlins or trusses can span the width of the structure [which is wider than just one container] to support the roof (Paragraph 0042). Note: the limitation “positioned after” is directed towards the method of making but these claims are for the product. The patentability lies within the product and not them method by which it is produced.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J TRIGGS whose telephone number is (571)270-3657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6am-2pm 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, Brian Mattei can be reached at (571) 270-3238. 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 J TRIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635