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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6, 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,030,419. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims call for an automated system with electromagnetic guidance with the differences being obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art and a reasonably predictable result. .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims11, 12, 19, 20 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. The expression “the cover” (claims 11, 12) has no definite antecedent basis in the claims. Claim 19 is indefinite in that it depends from itself. Claim 20 is indefinite in that it depends from an indefinite base claim. It is noted that independent claim 6 provides antecedent basis for such. Clarification and correction are required.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 15 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Levine et al (20190352101). The reference to Levine et al teaches structure as claimed including a system of moving products, the system comprising: a plurality of intermodal containers ( d, p), each intermodal container including a base having a body with a defined number of sides, the base being configured to support products during transport, the base of an intermodal container being configured to releasably secure or otherwise position the base proximate to a base of an adjacent intermodal container (the container configured in shape to be positioned proximate to a base of an adjacent container), at least one lift ( at least 80)configured to move vertically within a facility to present an intermodal container of the plurality of intermodal containers to a floor of the facility. With regard to claim 15, note at least fig 2 which further shows a shape (any void has a unique shape) to enable the bases to be stacked on covers having protrusions.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jones (2647287). The reference to Jones teaches structure as claimed including a system of moving products, the system comprising: a plurality of bases (12, 14, 16) each including a defined number of sides and being configured to support products during transport, the plurality of bases being configured to be attached to one another to create a geometric shape; and a cover (18, 20, 22) configured to enclose the plurality of bases.
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) 3, 4, 5, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levine et al (20190352101). The reference to Levine et al teaches structure substantially as claimed as discussed above. The use of hinged ramps to aid in loading loads on and off a truck is well known such as U-Haul trucks. With regard to claim 4, note conveyors 14 of Levine et al. To use such conventional structures at particular locations to provide the well-known intended use of those structures would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art and a reasonably predictable result. In regard to claim 13, note the fork lift tine openings at least in fig 5. The use of such structure is well known and conventional.
Claim(s) 7, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones (2647287). The reference to Jones teaches structure substantially as claimed as discussed above. The use of locking mechanisms on transport trucks to provide securement of loads, such as straps, anchoring points on the floor and walls and the use of hinged ramps to aid in loading loads on and off a truck, such as U-Haul trucks are well known and to use such in the same well known intended purpose and environment would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art and a reasonably predictable result.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones (2647287) in view of Millhouse (20190031394). The reference to Jones teaches structure substantially as claimed as discussed above including a base that can be loaded on a transport truck the only difference being that there is not an electromagnet guidance on the transport. However, the reference to Millhouse teaches the use of providing an electromagnet guidance (at least pg 0134). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure of Jones with a reasonable expectation of success, to include a an electromagnet guidance, as taught by Millhouse since such are conventional alternative structures used in the same intended purpose and environment and would have been a reasonably predictable result, thereby providing structure as claimed.
Claim(s) 11, so far as definite is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levine et al (20190352101) in view of Darby (5722328). The reference to Levine et al teaches structure substantially as claimed as discussed above including a base the only difference being that there is not a lip to provide a positioning guide for a structure. However, the reference to Darby teaches the use of providing a lip to provide a positioning guide to secure to be old (at least figs 1, 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure of Levine et al with a reasonable expectation of success, to include a positioning lip, as taught by Darby since such are conventional alternative structures used in the same intended purpose and environment and would have been a reasonably predictable result, thereby providing structure as claimed.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levine et al (20190352101) in view of Millhouse (20190031394). The reference to Levine et al teaches structure substantially as claimed as discussed above including a base the only difference being that there is not a mechanical device to secure to another base. However, the reference to Millhouse teaches the use of providing a mechanical device to secure to an adjacent base to be old (at least fig 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure of Levine et al with a reasonable expectation of success, to include a mechanical device to connect to another base to provide additional load surface, as taught by Millhouse since such are conventional alternative structures used in the same intended purpose and environment and would have been a reasonably predictable result, thereby providing structure as claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12, 19-20 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 17-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited teach structure similar to applicant’s including automated systems for product movement.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE V CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6865. The examiner can normally be reached m-f, m-w 5:30-3:00, th5:30-2:00.
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, Daniel Troy can be reached at 571 270 3742. 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.
/JOSE V CHEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637