DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-5, 8, 1-12, 14, 15 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ronstadt (US2016/0090234).
1. Ronstadt teaches a method a containment vessel within a modular bi-level storage and transport assembly (MTA, 6), wherein the MTA is configured to be secured in a transport vehicle, comprising: placing a containment vessel between an upper rigid layer and a lower rigid layer of the MTA (Ronstadt teaches a transport assembly including an upper rigid member and a lower rigid member defining a space therebetween for receiving a container, as shown in Figs. 1-9) reducing a distance between the upper rigid layer and the lower rigid layer to restrain the containment vessel in the MTA using an adjustable support mechanism coupled to the upper rigid layer and lower rigid layer; (Ronstadt teaches an adjustable support mechanism, 4, comprising collapsible wall members/scissor members extending between and coupled to the upper rigid member and lower rigid member, wherein the support mechanism permits adjustment of the spacing between the upper rigid member and lower rigid member) mating the MTA to a matching MTA by interfacing the lower rigid layer to a matching upper rigid layer of a matching MTA (Ronstadt teaches multiple transport assemblies that may be stacked, wherein a lower portion of one assembly interfaces with an upper portion of another assembly, as shown for example in the stacked configurations of the figures) The Reference DIDFERS in that it does not teach reducing the distance between the upper rigid member and lower rigid member to restrain a containment vessel positioned therebetween. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to reduce the spacing between the upper rigid member and lower rigid member using the adjustable support mechanism of the reference in order to secure and restrain cargo containers of varying sizes during transport, since the adjustable support mechanism is expressly provided for varying the distance between the upper and lower rigid members and such use would merely represent a predictable use of the prior art elements according to their established functions.
2. The method of Claim 1, wherein the adjustable support mechanism comprises a plurality of interlocking frame segments (Figs 1-12).
3. The method of Claim 2, further comprising: locking one or more adjustable or removable locking components located at one or more intersections between two of the plurality of the interlocking frame segments and the upper rigid layer or the lower rigid layer (Figs 1-12).
4. The method of Claim 1, wherein the adjustable support mechanism has one end operable to slide along a defined mechanical path on either the upper rigid layer or the lower rigid layer (Figs 1-12).
5. The method of Claim 4, wherein the adjustable support mechanism has one or more receiving structures for a locking component placed at one or more positions along the mechanical path (Figs 1-12).
8. The method of Claim 1, further comprising: mating the MTA with a matching MTA by interfacing the lower rigid layer with a matching
upper rigid layer of the matching MTA (Figs 1-12).
10. The method of Claim 1, further comprising: securing at least one of a rigid containment vessel (Figs 1-12), an Aircraft compatible pallet, or general
cargo on top of the upper rigid layer.
11. The method of Claim 1, further comprising: securing the lower rigid layer to an interior surface of at least one of an aircraft, a sea-based
transport vehicle, or a ground-based transport vehicle (Figs 1-12).
12. The method of Claim 1, further comprising: securing at least one of the upper rigid layer or the lower rigid layer to a sling to enable sling loading via at least one of a vertical lift aircraft or other cargo transport and handling vehicles (Figs 1-12).
14. The method of Claim 1, further comprising: rotating or translating the upper rigid layer and locking in various positions by one or more locking mechanisms (Figs. 1-12).
15. The method of Claim 14, further comprising: when the upper rigid layer is in a vertical or horizontal position, securing a containment vessel or cargo on top of the upper rigid layer; and setting and locking the upper rigid layer in intermediate angular positions between a horizontal axis and a vertical axis, wherein the horizontal axis and the vertical axis are set in relation to the lower rigid layer (Figs. 1-12).
18. The method of Claim 1, further comprising: configuring the upper rigid layer and the lower rigid layer with various military, commercial or custom tie down fittings (Figs 1-12).
19. The method of Claim 1, Ronstadt DIFFERS in that it does not disclose at least one of the upper rigid layer or the lower rigid layer comprise aircraft compatible pallets. However, Official notice is taken that pallets are old and well known. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art to employ the container with aircraft compatible pallets, if it is desired to transport the container by air.
20. The method of Claim 1, wherein at least one of the upper rigid layer or the lower rigid layer is compatible with support mechanisms that allow at least one of lifting in a vertical plane or movement in a horizontal plane by various material handling devices and vehicles (Figs 1-12).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7, 9, 13, 16 and 17 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREEN KAY THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)270-5611. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm.
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 E. 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.
/KAREEN K THOMAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights