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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9 and 13-15 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.
Applicant's arguments filed 5/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 10 Applicant argues:
“Claim 10 recites elements and limitations similar to those discussed above. For the same reasons as claim 1, the Applicant respectfully submits that Lobisser does not anticipate claim 10, which is in condition for allowance over the cited art of record for the same reasons provided above for claim 1.”
However, claim 10 discloses “a near fully open position; or a fully open position” instead of “a near fully open position; and a fully open position” as in claim 1. The disclosing of “or” instead of “and” does prevent the cited prior art from being applied because only an open position or a closed position in the prior art is necessary to anticipate the claim language. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not convincing.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim does not show the appropriate markings for the deletion of the word “the” on line 4 in reference to “the four side panels”. No correction is required and the objection is merely to provide clarity for the record of prosecution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lobisser et al. (USP 10,759,588).
Regarding claim 10, Lobisser et al. disclose a method for storing produce in an automated storage and retrieval system, wherein the method comprises:
inserting produce (see column 2 lines 12-15) into a storage compartment (18) of a storage container (10);
adjusting an adjustable ventilation opening (20) of the storage container (10) according to the type of produce inserted into the storage compartment (see column 8 lines 21-32 and column 8 lines 63-67 to column 9 lines 1-20),
wherein the adjustable ventilation opening is adjusted to:
a closed position (see column 11 lines 55-60);
a near closed position;
a near fully open position; or
a fully open position (see column 11 lines 55-60).
Regarding claim 11, Lobisser et al. disclose the method according to claim 10, wherein the method further comprises, after the step of inserting produce into the storage compartment:
sealing an access opening of the storage container (10) by means of at least a section of a top panel (16) or at least a section of one of four side panels (see column 13 lines 34-49).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Toole (USP 6,307,193).
Regarding claim 10, Toole discloses a method for storing produce in an automated storage and retrieval system, wherein the method comprises:
inserting produce (see column 9 lines 12-14) into a storage compartment (see Figure 3) of a storage container (10);
adjusting an adjustable ventilation opening (17,20) of the storage container (10) according to the type of produce inserted into the storage compartment (column 9 lines 12-21),
wherein the adjustable ventilation opening is adjusted to:
a closed position (see “the closed position” in column 4 line 65);
a near closed position (see “partially closed” in column 4 lines 63-65);
a near fully open position (see “the partially open” in column 4 lines 63-65); and
a fully open position (see “the open position” in column 4 line 62).
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toole (USP 6,307,193) and further in view of Lobisser et al. (USP 10,759,588).
Regarding claim 1, Toole discloses a storage container (10) for storing produce in an automated storage and retrieval system, wherein the storage container comprises:
a base panel (see Figure 3);
side panels (see Figures 1-3) extending from the base;
a top panel (12) provided above the four side panels;
wherein the base panel, the four side panels and the top panel define a storage compartment (see Figures 1-3);
wherein the storage container comprises an adjustable ventilation opening (17,20) provided in the base panel, the top panel (see Figure 1) or one of the four side panels,
wherein the position of the adjustable ventilation opening can be varied between any of:
a closed position (see “the closed position” in column 4 line 65);
a near closed position (see “partially closed” in column 4 lines 63-65);
a near fully open position (see “the partially open” in column 4 lines 63-65); and
a fully open position (see “the open position” in column 4 line 62).
However, Toole does not disclose four side panels extending from the base. Lobisser et al. disclose four side panels extending from the base (see Figures 6-7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container disclosed by Toole by including four side panels extending from the base, as disclosed by Lobisser et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a container with opposite sides (see column 7 line 47) and because a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lobisser et al. (USP 10,759,588) and further in view of Toole (USP 6,307,193).
Regarding claim 1, Lobisser et al. disclose a storage container (10) for storing produce in an automated storage and retrieval system, wherein the storage container comprises:
a base panel (14);
four side panels (12) extending from the base;
a top panel (16) provided above the four side panels;
wherein the base panel (14), the four side panels (12) and the top panel (16) define a storage compartment (18);
wherein the storage container comprises an adjustable ventilation opening (20) provided in the base panel, the top panel (see Figure 1) or one of the four side panels.
However, they do not disclose a container wherein the position of the adjustable ventilation opening can be varied between any of:
a closed position;
a near closed position;
a near fully open position; and
a fully open position.
Toole discloses a container wherein the position of the adjustable ventilation opening can be varied between any of:
a closed position (see “the closed position” in column 4 line 65);
a near closed position (see “partially closed” in column 4 lines 63-65);
a near fully open position (see “the partially open” in column 4 lines 63-65); and
a fully open position (see “the open position” in column 4 line 62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container disclosed by Lobisser et al. by including a container wherein the position of the adjustable ventilation opening can be varied between any of: a closed position; a near closed position; a near fully open position; and a fully open position, as disclosed by Toole, with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a ventilation system for controlling the amount of moisture retained in the container (see column 4 lines 55-66).
Regarding claim 2, Lobisser et al. disclose the storage container according to claim 1, wherein the base panel (14), the four side panels (12) and the top panel (16) defines an air-tight storage compartment when the adjustable ventilation opening is closed off (see column 13 lines 34-49).
Regarding claim 3, Lobisser et al. disclose the storage container according to claim 1, wherein the storage container comprises an access opening for inserting produce into the storage compartment or for retrieving produce out from the storage compartment (see Figures 1-3); wherein at least a section of the top panel (16) or at least a section of one of the four side panels forms a closure of the access opening (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 4, Lobisser et al. disclose the storage container according to claim 3, wherein the entire top panel forms a closure of the access opening (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 5, Lobisser et al. disclose the storage container according to claim 4, wherein the top panel (16) is liftable up from the access opening and is insertable into the access opening (see Figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 6, Lobisser et al. disclose the storage container according to claim 4, wherein the top panel is sealingly engaged with the side panels (see column 13 lines 34-49).
Regarding claim 7, Lobisser et al. disclose the storage container according to claim 1, wherein the storage container comprises a sealing element (50,52), wherein the top panel is sealingly engaged with the side panels by means of the sealing element (see column 13 lines 34-49).
Regarding claim 8, Lobisser et al. disclose the storage container according to claim 5, wherein the storage container comprises:
recesses formed on the interior side of the side panels (see Figures 1-5); and
a top panel support inserted into the recesses for supporting the top panel when engaged with the side panels (see Figure 5).
Regarding claim 9, Lobisser et al. disclose the storage container according to claim 1, wherein the adjustable ventilation opening (20) is integrated in the top panel (see Figure 1).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lobisser et al. (USP 10,759,588) as applied to claims 10-11 above, and further in view of BATES et al. (USPGPUB 2018/0142947).
Regarding claim 12, Lobisser et al. disclose the method according to claim 10. However, they do not disclose a method wherein the method further comprises:
selecting a storage position in the automated storage and retrieval system based on the type of produce inserted into the storage compartment.
BATES et al. disclose a method wherein the method further comprises:
selecting a storage position in the automated storage and retrieval system based on the type of produce inserted into the storage compartment (see paragraph [0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Lobisser et al. by including a method wherein the method further comprises: selecting a storage position in the automated storage and retrieval system based on the type of produce inserted into the storage compartment, as disclosed by BATES et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a storage system that enables the storage of items requiring chilling (see paragraph [0048]).
Claim(s) 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LINDBO et al. (USPGPUB 2016/0194151) and further in view of Toole (USP 6,307,193).
Regarding claim 13, LINDBO et al. disclose an automated storage and retrieval system comprising a framework structure, wherein the framework structure comprises:
upright members (see Figure 4);
a storage volume comprising storage columns provided between the upright members (see Figure 4);
a rail system (22) provided on top of the upright members;
wherein the automated storage and retrieval system comprises:
container handling vehicles (30) moving on the rail system;
storage containers (10) for storing produce in an automated storage and retrieval system, wherein each storage container comprises:
a base panel (see Figure 3);
four side panels (see Figure 3) extending from the base;
a top panel (see Figure 3) provided above the four side panels;
wherein the base panel, the four side panels and the top panel define a storage compartment (see Figure 3);
wherein the storage containers (10) are stackable in stacks within the storage columns by means of the container handling vehicles (see Figure 4).
However, they do not disclose a system wherein the storage container comprises an adjustable ventilation opening provided in the base panel, the top panel or one of the four side panels, wherein the position of the adjustable ventilation opening can be varied between any of a closed position, a near closed position, a near fully open position, and a fully open position. Toole discloses a system wherein the storage container comprises an adjustable ventilation opening (17,20) provided in the base panel, the top panel (12) or one of the four side panels, wherein the position of the adjustable ventilation opening can be varied between any of a closed position, a near closed position, a near fully open position, and a fully open position (see column 4 lines 46-66). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by LINDBO et al. by including a system wherein the storage container comprises an adjustable ventilation opening provided in the base panel, the top panel or one of the four side panels, wherein the position of the adjustable ventilation opening can be varied between any of a closed position, a near closed position, a near fully open position, and a fully open position, as disclosed by Toole, with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a ventilation system for controlling the amount of moisture retained in the container (see column 4 lines 55-66).
Regarding claim 15, LINDBO et al. disclose the automated storage and retrieval system according to claim 13, wherein the storage container comprises an upper vehicle connection interface, thereby allowing the storage container to be lifted by the container handling vehicles (see Figure 3).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LINDBO et al. (USPGPUB 2016/0194151) and further in view of Toole (USP 6,307,193) as applied to claims 13 and 15 above, and further in view of Lobisser et al. (USP 10,759,588).
Regarding claim 14, LINDBO et al. in view of Toole disclose the automated storage and retrieval system according to claim 13. However, they do not disclose a system wherein the storage container comprises a lower stacking interface and an upper stacking interface; thereby allowing the storage container to be stacked above or below similar or identical storage containers. Lobisser et al. disclose a system wherein the storage container comprises a lower stacking interface and an upper stacking interface; thereby allowing the storage container to be stacked above or below similar or identical storage containers (see Figure 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by LINDBO et al. in view of Toole by including a system wherein the storage container comprises a lower stacking interface and an upper stacking interface; thereby allowing the storage container to be stacked above or below similar or identical storage containers, as disclosed by Lobisser et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing stackable containers to facilitate shipping and handling (see column 6 lines 39-55).
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL COLLINS whose telephone number is (571)272-8970. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached at (571) 270-3415. 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.
M.K.C.
7/28/2026
/MICHAEL COLLINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights