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 § 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.
(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) 11-13 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Murray (US 20180244293 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Murray discloses a method of transporting a plurality of bags in a product storage facility (cart 10 transports bags), the method comprising: supporting, using a respective one or more of a plurality of first support members (hooks 80, 84, 76, fig.1) of a cart (cart 10), handles of each of a plurality of bags being transported by the cart, wherein the cart comprises wheels (wheels 24) mounted to and supporting a frame (frame assembly 22), wherein the plurality of the first support members extend from the frame; and supporting, using a respective one of a plurality of second support members (product support assembly 70 and shelf assembly 100) of the cart, a bottom of each of the plurality of bags being transported by the cart, wherein the plurality of second support members extend from the frame and are different from the plurality of the first support members (support assembly 70 and shelf assembly 100 are different than hooks).
Regarding claim 12, Murray discloses wherein each of the first support members comprises a hook (hooks 80, 84, 76, fig.1), and wherein each of the second support members comprises a tray or a shelf (product support assembly 70 and shelf assembly 100).
Regarding claim 13, Murray discloses wherein the frame comprises a vertical divider member (vertical portion 26 and peg board 82), wherein some of the second support members extend away from one side of the vertical divider member and some of the second support members extend away from an opposite side of the vertical divider member (product support assembly 70 and shelf assembly 100, fig.6).
Regarding claim 16, Murray discloses wherein the cart includes at least three rows of first support members (a plurality of hooks 80, 84, and 76 can be mounted anywhere on peg board 82, including in three rows, fig.1 and 6) and three rows of second support members extending on a first side of the vertical divider member (product support assembly 70 and shelf assembly 100, fig.6), and further comprising at least three rows of first support members (a plurality of hooks 80, 84, and 76 can be mounted anywhere on peg board 82, including in three rows, fig.1 and 6) and three rows of second support members extending on a second, opposite, side of the vertical divider member (product support assembly 70 and shelf assembly 100, fig.6).
Regarding claim 17, Murray discloses wherein: a first row of the second support members is located between first and second rows of the first support members (uppermost product support assembly 70 and shelf assembly 100 has peg board 82 above and below for rows of hooks 80, 84, and 76 to be mounted, figs.1 and 6); a second row of the second support members is located between second and third rows of the first support members (middle product support assembly 70 and shelf assembly 100 has peg board 82 above and below for rows of hooks 80, 84, and 76 to be mounted, figs.1 and 6); and a third row of the second support members is located below a third row of the first support members (bottommost product support assembly 70 and shelf assembly 100 has peg board 82 above for rows of hooks 80, 84, and 76 to be mounted, figs.1 and 6).
Regarding claim 18, Murray discloses wherein at least one pair of the first support members is positioned above each one of the second support members (product support assembly 70 and shelf assembly 100 has peg board 82 above for rows of hooks 80, 84, and 76 to be mounted, figs.1 and 6).
Regarding claim 19, Murray discloses further comprising a bag dispenser (storage bins 154 and 162, fig.1) coupled to the frame and configured to store a plurality of the bags when the bags are not in use (storage bins 154 and 162 can store bags).
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) 1-3, and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray (US 20180244293 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Murray discloses a cart (cart 10) for transporting a plurality of bags for use in a product storage facility, the cart comprising: a frame (frame assembly 22), wheels (wheels 24) mounted to and supporting the frame; a plurality of first support members (hooks 80, 84, 76, fig.1) extending from and fixedly mounted relative to the frame (it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the hooks can be fixedly mounted via fasteners or adhesives) and configured to support handles of the bags thereon; and a plurality of second support members (product support assembly 70 and shelf assembly 100) movably mounted relative to the frame and configured to support a bottom of the bags thereon (support assembly 70 and shelf assembly 100 are movable mounted on rack assembly 90); wherein the first support members are different from the second support members (support assembly 70 and shelf assembly 100 are different than hooks).
Regarding claim 2, Murray discloses wherein each of the first support members comprises a hook (hooks 80, 84, 76, fig.1), and wherein each of the second support members comprises a tray or a shelf (product support assembly 70 and shelf assembly 100).
Regarding claim 3, Murray discloses wherein the frame comprises a vertical divider member (vertical portion 26 and peg board 82), wherein some of the second support members extend away from one side of the vertical divider member and some of the second support members extend away from an opposite side of the vertical divider member (product support assembly 70 and shelf assembly 100, fig.6).
Regarding claim 6, Murray discloses wherein the cart includes at least three rows of first support members (a plurality of hooks 80, 84, and 76 can be mounted anywhere on peg board 82, including in three rows, fig.1 and 6) and three rows of second support members extending on a first side of the vertical divider member (product support assembly 70 and shelf assembly 100, fig.6), and further comprising at least three rows of first support members (a plurality of hooks 80, 84, and 76 can be mounted anywhere on peg board 82, including in three rows, fig.1 and 6) and three rows of second support members extending on a second, opposite, side of the vertical divider member (product support assembly 70 and shelf assembly 100, fig.6).
Regarding claim 7, Murray discloses wherein: a first row of the second support members is located between first and second rows of the first support members (uppermost product support assembly 70 and shelf assembly 100 has peg board 82 above and below for rows of hooks 80, 84, and 76 to be mounted, figs.1 and 6); a second row of the second support members is located between second and third rows of the first support members (middle product support assembly 70 and shelf assembly 100 has peg board 82 above and below for rows of hooks 80, 84, and 76 to be mounted, figs.1 and 6); and a third row of the second support members is located below a third row of the first support members (bottommost product support assembly 70 and shelf assembly 100 has peg board 82 above for rows of hooks 80, 84, and 76 to be mounted, figs.1 and 6).
Regarding claim 8, Murray discloses wherein at least one pair of the first support members is positioned above each one of the second support members (product support assembly 70 and shelf assembly 100 has peg board 82 above for rows of hooks 80, 84, and 76 to be mounted, figs.1 and 6).
Regarding claim 9, Murray discloses further comprising a bag dispenser (storage bins 154 and 162, fig.1) coupled to the frame and configured to store a plurality of the bags when the bags are not in use (storage bins 154 and 162 can store bags).
Claim(s) 4-5 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray (US 20180244293 A1) in view of Dresnick (US 10856656 B2).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Murray discloses the cart of claim 1 and method of transporting of claim 11, but fails to disclose the second support members being pivotally coupled relative to the vertical divider member.
However, Dresnick discloses wherein the second support members (shelves 20, 30, 40, fig.3) are pivotally coupled relative to the vertical divider member such that each of the second support members is permitted to fold up relative to the vertical divider member (shelves 20, 30, and 40 fold upward relative to the tower 60, fig.3).
Murray and Dresnick are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of shelves. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Murray with the foldable shelves of Dresnick with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of allowing the cart to be folded flatter for a more compact storage position.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Murray in combination with Dresnick discloses wherein the frame is in a form of an i-beam (base 62 of Dresnick form and I-beam, fig.3), and wherein, after the second support members are folded up, the cart permits another identical cart having second support members folded up to be nested thereagainst (Dresnick, shelves 20, 30, and 40 of item 10 being folded up would allow another item 10 to nest with runners 64 of one item 10 adjacent the runners 64 of another item 10, fig.3).
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray (US 20180244293 A1) in view of Bidram (US 20220204066 A1).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Murray discloses the cart of claim 1 and method of transporting of claim 11, but fails to disclose a robotic transport unit.
However, Bidram discloses further comprising at least one robotic transport unit (towing device 250, figs.2) including a processor-based control circuit and configured to mechanically engage the cart (server 280 in communication with towing device 250 and apparatus 201, towing hook 256 with mechanical connection 258, fig.2, paragraphs [0025, 0027-0028], fig.2), and to move the cart about the product storage facility when mechanically engaged to the cart (fig.2).
Murray and Bidram are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of carts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Murray with the towing device of Bidram with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of allowing the carts to be autonomously transported around for a more efficient system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The prior art not relied upon but considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure is included in the 892 form. The art included has features related to claim limitations, the general structural of the invention, teachings, and other analogous art to the invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IAN BRYCE SHELTON whose telephone number is (571)272-6501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, 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.
/IAN BRYCE SHELTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights