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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter (i.e., the end frame having an upper interlocking portion and a lower interlocking portion interlocking with the end section when the end section in the closed position) which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 45 is 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 claim recites “when the end section is in the closed position” twice. It is not clear how at least one end section interlocking portion can interlock with the upper interlocking portion and the lower interlocking portion at the same time i.e., when the end section is in the closed position.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 32 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cavalcante (US 2014/0251992) in view of Nolan (US 9,422,082).
Regarding claim 1, Cavalcante (figs. 1-7 and marked-up fig. 4) discloses a collapsible container comprising:
a base 12 including a first edge and a pair of opposed second edges, the first edge extending from one of the pair of opposed second edges to the other of the opposed second edges, a first flange extending upward from the first edge of the base;
a plurality of walls 18, 14, 16, including a first wall 16 and an adjacent second wall 18;
the second wall 18 including a frame 20 hingeably secured to the base 12, the frame 20 including a pair of vertical portions, wherein the pair of vertical portions of the first wall are each hingeably connected to the base (paragraph 0022), the second wall 18 including at least one section 24 pivotably secured to the vertical portions of the respective frame 20 to selectively restrict and facilitate access to an interior of the container, wherein at the least one section 24 of the second wall 18 is pivotable about an axis extending through the vertical portions of the frame 20;
wherein the first wall 16 is co-planar with the first edge of the base when the first wall is in an upright position perpendicular to the base 12, and wherein the frame of the second wall 18 does not extend over the first edge of the base 12 when the second wall 18 is in an upright position perpendicular to the base and perpendicular to the first wall 16; and
a frame latch 22 selectively securing the frame 20 of the second wall 18 to the first wall 16.
Cavalcante fails to disclose: the first wall 16 also including:
a frame hingeably secured to the base,
the frame including a pair of vertical portions,
at least one section pivotably secured to the vertical portions of the frame to selectively restrict and facilitate access to an interior of the container, wherein at least one section of the second wall is pivotable about an axis extending through the vertical portions of the respective frame.
However, Nolan teaches one or more sidewalls 280 of a container having drop door 285 pivotally attached (fig. 1 and col. 5, lines 42-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have provided the all four walls (or at least two walls) of Cavalcante, a frame and at least one section, as the second wall 18, to provide easy access to the contents of the container through the other walls as well.
Also, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
PNG
media_image1.png
807
698
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Cavalcante further discloses the first wall 16 being perpendicular to the second wall 18 (figs. 1-2).
Regarding claims 4-5, the modified Cavalcante further discloses the plurality of walls further includes a third wall including a third frame with at least one third section pivotably secured to the third frame, and a fourth wall including a fourth frame with at least one fourth section pivotably secured to the fourth frame;
wherein the frame of the second wall 18 is selectively securable to the third frame, and wherein the third frame is selectively securable to the fourth frame, and wherein the fourth frame is selectively securable to the frame of the first wall (fig. 1 of Nolan).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Cavalcante further discloses a first latch 25 selectively securing the at least one section of the first wall 16 to the frame of the first wall 16; and a second latch selectively securing the at least one section of the second wall 18 to the frame of the second wall since all four walls of the modified Cavalcante have a frame and at least one section (fig. 1 of Cavalcante and Nolan).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Cavalcante further discloses the first latch and the second latch are adjacent the frame latch (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Cavalcante further discloses the at least one section of the first wall 16 and the second wall 18 can each be pivoted relative to their respective frames from a closed position to an open position while an identical container is stacked on the collapsible container (paragraph 0026).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Cavalcante further discloses a pair of arms pivotably securing the at least one section of the first wall 16 to the frame of the first wall 16 since at least one section and a frame is being provided to first wall 16 as in second wall 18 (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 32, Schearer (figs. 1-4) discloses a collapsible container comprising:
a base 12;
a plurality of walls including a first wall 16 and an adjacent second wall 18;
the second wall 18 including a frame 20 hingeably secured to the base 22 and at least one section 24 pivotably secured to the respective frame 20 to selectively restrict and facilitate access to an interior of the container; and
a frame latch 22 selectively securing the first wall 16 to the frame 20 of the second wall 18.
Cavalcante fails to disclose:
the first wall 16 including a frame hingeably secured to the base and at least one section pivotably secured to the respective frame to selectively restrict and facilitate access to an interior of the container,
wherein the frame of the first wall includes two upright portions each hingeably connected to the base, wherein the frame of the first wall is not above the base in a center of the first wall.
However, Nolan teaches one or more sidewalls 280 of a container having drop door 285 pivotally attached (fig. 1 and col. 5, lines 42-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have provided the first wall 16 of Cavalcante, a frame with two upright portions and at least one section, as the second wall 24, to provide easy access to the contents of the container through the first wall as well.
Also, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 39, Cavalcante further discloses the at least one section including a pair of integral hinge portions forming a hinge together with integral hinge portions of the frame (figs. 3-4 and paragraph 0034).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cavalcante (US 2014/0251992) in view of Nolan (US 9,422,082) as applied to claim 32, further in view of Buckley (US 4,186,841).
Regarding claim 33, the modified Cavalcante discloses all elements of the claimed invention as applied to claim 32 above, but fails to disclose the two upright portions are not part of a U-shaped frame.
However, Buckey teaches a wall 116 having two upright portions that are not part of a U-shaped frame (figs. 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have made the two upright portions of the first wall of the modified device of Cavalcante, not part of a U-shaped frame to cut cost by minimizing the amount of material needed.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cavalcante (US 2014/0251992) in view of Nolan (US 9,422,082) as applied to claim 31 above, further in view of Popkess (US 2,804,197).
Regarding claim 36, the modified Cavalcante discloses all elements of the claimed invention as applied to claim 31 above, but fails to disclose a pin captured in each of a pair of arcuate openings, such that the pins slide in the arcuate openings when the upright portions are pivoted relative to the base.
However, Popkess teaches a pin 96 projecting from a wall being captured in an arcuate opening 70 (figs. 5-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have provided two opposing frames of the modified Cavalcante, a pin that projects into an arcuate opening of the projection , as taught by Popkess, for limiting the angle of rotation of the wall to prevent the wall putting pressure on the wall underneath to minimize damage to the walls.
Claims 10, 16, 22, 29, 37-38, 40-41 and 43-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schearer (US 6,044,998) in view of Coogan (US 5,056,667).
Regarding claim 10, Schearer (fig. 2) discloses a collapsible container comprising:
a base 22 having opposed side edges meeting opposed end edges at corners of the base 22, an end projection projecting upwardly along the side edges adjacent each corner;
a pair of opposed side walls 28, 30 hingeably secured at the side edges of the base 22; and
a pair of opposed end walls 24, 26 secured by a hinge.
However, Schearer fails to disclose the pair of opposed end walls 24, 26 discussed above being secured to each of the end projections by the hinge, wherein each hinge includes a first hinge portion on the end wall hingeably coupled to a second hinge portion formed on the respective end projection.
However, Coogan teaches a pair of opposed end walls 64, 66 being secured to end projections 57 by hinges, wherein each hinge includes a first hinge portion 68 on the end wall 64 hingeably coupled to a second hinge portion 70 formed on the respective end projection 57.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to substitute hinges that include a first hinge portion on the end wall and a second hinge portion on the end projection, as, for example, taught by the Coogan reference for the end wall hinges of Schearer, since it has been held that when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 50-51, 148 USPQ 479, 483 (1966)).
Regarding claim 16, Schearer further discloses the side walls 28, 30 are between the end walls 24, 26 and maintain the end walls in an upright position when the side walls are in an upright position (figs. 1-2).
Regarding claims 22 and 43, Schearer (figs. 1-3) discloses a collapsible container comprising:
a base 22 having integral first flanges extending upward from opposed first edges and integral second flanges extending upward from opposed second edges, wherein the first flanges are elongated along the first edges and wherein the second flanges are elongated along the second edges, wherein the first edges are perpendicular to the second edges, the base 22 further including a second projection projecting upward from each first flange;
a first wall 30 secured by at least one first hinge to one of the first flanges and movable between an upright position extending upward from the base and a collapsed position on the base 22; and
a second wall 24 hingeably movable between an upright position extending upward from the base and a collapsed position on the base.
Schearer fails to disclosed the second wall 24 being hingeably secured to the second projections;
Wherein the second wall 24 includes first hinge portions pivotably coupled to second hinge portions formed in the second projections, and wherein the second wall is between the second projections.
However, Coogan teaches a pair of opposed end walls 64, 66 being secured to end projections 57 by hinges, wherein each hinge includes a first hinge portion 68 on the end wall 64 hingeably coupled to a second hinge portion 70 formed on the respective end projection 57.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to substitute hinges that include a first hinge portion on the end wall and a second hinge portion on the end projection, as, for example, taught by the Coogan reference for the second wall 24 hinges of Schearer, since it has been held that when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 50-51, 148 USPQ 479, 483 (1966)).
Regarding claim 29, Schearer further discloses the base 22 includes side flanges extending upward from the side edges, wherein the pair of opposed side walls 28, 30 are secured by hinges to the side flanges, and wherein the end projections project upward from the side flanges, wherein the side flanges are elongated along the side edges and wherein the first edges are perpendicular to the second edges (figs. 1-2 and 8).
Regarding claim 30, the modified Schearer further discloses each of the pair of opposed end walls includes two upright portions (i.e., portions facing the side walls) each hingeably secured to the end projections (fig. 9 of Coogan).
Regarding claim 37, Schearer further discloses the pair of opposed side walls 28, 30 are secured by at least one side hinge 66 at the side edges of the base (fig. 8) and the modified Schearer further discloses the pair of opposed end walls 24, 26 secured by at least one end hinge to the end projections (fig. 9 of Coogan).
Regarding claim 38, Schearer further discloses each of the second projections projecting upward at one of the opposed first edges of the base (figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 40, the modified Schearer further discloses each of the first hinge portion is a pin 68 and wherein each second hinge portion is an aperture 70, and wherein each of first hinge pins 68 is rotatably received in the respective aperture 70 (fig. 9 of Coogan).
Regarding claim 41, the modified Schearer further discloses each end projection is elongated along one of the side edges of the base 22 and wherein the aperture 70 (of Coogan) through each end projection is in a direction perpendicular to the respective end projection (fig. 9 of Coogan).
Regarding claim 44, the modified Schearer further discloses the hinges are in a plane of the side walls 28, 30 when the side walls are in an upright position perpendicular to the end walls (fig. 1).
Claims 11, 23 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schearer (US 6,044,998) in view of Coogan (US 5,056,667) further in view of Popkess (US 2,804,197).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Schearer discloses all elements of the claimed invention as applied to claim 10 above but fails to disclose each end projection further includes an arcuate opening capturing a guide pin projecting from the associated end wall.
However, Popkess teaches a pin 96 projecting from a wall being captured in an arcuate opening 70 (figs. 5-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have provided the end wall of the modified Schearer, a pin that projects into an arcuate opening of the projection , as taught by Popkess, for limiting the angle of rotation of the wall to prevent the end wall putting pressure on the wall underneath to minimize damage to the walls.
Regarding claim 23, the modified Schearer discloses all elements of the claimed invention as applied to claim 22 above but fails to disclose each second projection includes an arcuate opening and wherein the second wall includes pins received in the arcuate openings.
However, Popkess teaches a pin 96 projecting from a wall being captured in an arcuate opening 70 (figs. 5-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have provided the second wall of the modified Schearer, a pin that projects into an arcuate opening of the projection , as taught by Popkess, for limiting the angle of rotation of the wall to prevent the end wall putting pressure on the wall underneath to minimize damage to the walls.
Regarding claim 42, the modified Schearer discloses all elements of the claimed invention as applied to claim 41 above but fails to disclose each end projection further includes an arcuate opening capturing a guide pin projecting from the associated end wall.
However, Popkess teaches a pin 96 projecting from a wall being captured in an arcuate opening 70 (figs. 5-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have provided the end wall of the modified Schearer, a pin that projects into an arcuate opening of the projection , as taught by Popkess, for limiting the angle of rotation of the wall to prevent the end wall putting pressure on the wall underneath to minimize damage to the walls.
Claims 12-14, 17-18, 24 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schearer (US 6,044,998) in view of Coogan (US 5,056,667) further in view of Cavalcante (US 2014/0251992).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Schearer discloses all elements of the claimed invention as applied to claim 10 above, but fails to disclose each end wall 24, 26 includes an end frame and an end section pivotably secured to the end frame and pivotable between a closed position and a retracted position, each end wall further including a latch selectively securing the end section to the end frame in the closed position.
However, Cavalcante teaches a section 24 pivotably secured to a frame, with a latch 27 securing the section to the frame.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made each of the end walls 24, 26 of the modified Schearer, a frame with a pivotable section with a latch, as taught by Cavalcante, to easily access the contents of the container from the ends when needed.
Regarding claim 13, the modified Schearer further discloses each of the side walls includes a U-shaped side frame , each of the side walls further including a latch selectively securing the side section to the side frame in the closed position.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have provided a side section pivotably secured to the side frame and pivotable between a closed position and a retracted position, as taught by Cavalcante, to easily access the contents of the container from the ends when needed.
It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 14, Schearer further discloses plurality of frame latches selectively securing the end frames to the side frames (figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 17, Schearer further discloses the side frames each include a lower portion 50 parallel to the base and opposite vertical portions 52, 54 projecting upward from opposite ends of the lower portion, each side frame further including a pair of upper portions projecting toward one another from upper ends of the vertical portions, each of the upper portions including a latch 74 slidable relative to the upper portion for selectively securing the side frame to the end frame (figs. 1 and 9-10).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Schearer further discloses each side section (section 24 of Cavalcante) is pivotably secured to the vertical portions of the side frame below the upper portions and spaced above the lower portion (fig. 1 of Cavalcante).
Regarding claim 24, Schearer further discloses the first wall 30 includes a U-shaped frame and a section 56, the frame including a lower portion 50 parallel to the base and opposite vertical portions 52, 54 projecting upward from opposite ends of the lower portion, the frame further including a pair of upper portions projecting toward one another from upper ends of the vertical portions (fig. 3).
However, the modified Schearer fails to disclose the section 56 being pivotably secured to the frame and pivotable between a closed position and a retracted position; and a latch selectively securing the section to the frame in the closed position.
However, Cavalcante teaches a section 24 pivotably secured to a frame, with a latch 27 securing the section to the frame, wherein the section is pivotably about an axis extending through the vertical portions, below the upper portions, and spaced above the lower portion of the frame.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made the section 56 of Schearer, a pivotable section with a latch, as taught by Cavalcante, to prevent contents from falling off and to easily access the contents from the container when needed.
Regarding claim 45, as best understood by the examiner in view of the 112 rejection, the modified Schearer further discloses the end section includes at least one end section interlocking portion 68 interlocking with an upper interlocking portion 27 in the end frame when the end section is in the closed position (fig. 7 of Cavalcante).
Claims 19 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schearer (US 6,044,998) in view of Cavalcante (US 2014/0251992).
Regarding claim 19, Schearer (figs. 1-3) discloses a collapsible container comprising:
a base 22;
a pair of opposed first walls 24, 26 pivotable between an upright position and a collapsed position;
a pair of opposed second walls 28, 30 pivotable between an upright position and a collapsed position, wherein at least one of the second walls 30 includes a U-shaped frame 50, 52, 54 and a section 56 secured to the frame;
the frame 50, 52, 54 including a lower portion 50 parallel to the base 22 and opposite vertical portions 52, 54 projecting upward from opposite ends of the lower portion 50, the frame further including a pair of upper portions projecting toward one another from upper ends of the vertical portions 52, 54; and
a frame latch 74 within each of the upper portions configured to secure the frame to the pair of opposed first walls 24, 26.
Schearer fails to disclose:
the section 56 being pivotably secured to the frame and pivotable between a closed position and a retracted position;
a section latch selectively securing the section to the frame in the closed position;
wherein the section is pivotably about an axis extending through the vertical portions, below the upper portions, and spaced above the lower portion of the frame.
However, Cavalcante teaches a section 24 pivotably secured to a frame, with a latch 27 securing the section to the frame, wherein the section is pivotably about an axis extending through the vertical portions, below the upper portions, and spaced above the lower portion of the frame.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made the section 56 of Schearer, a pivotable section, as taught by Cavalcante, to prevent contents from falling off and to easily access the contents from the container when needed.
Regarding claim 26, Schearer further discloses the frame latches 74 being slidably captured in the upper portions and biased toward the first walls (figs. 9-10).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schearer (US 6,044,998) in view of Cavalcante (US 2014/0251992) as applied to claim 26 above, further in view of Nolan (US 9,422,082).
Regarding claim 28, the modified Schearer discloses all elements of the claimed invention as applied to claim 26 above, but fails to disclose the section latches being slidably captured in the section and being biased toward the upper portions.
However, Nolan teaches section latches 290 being slidably captured in section 280 and being biased toward upper portions (figs. 1 and 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to substitute slidable latches, as, for example, taught by the Nolan reference for the latch 27 (of Cavalcante) of the modified Schearer, since it has been held that when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 50-51, 148 USPQ 479, 483 (1966)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments of claim 1, Cavalcante in figs. 2 and 7 clearly shows the second wall 18 not extending over the first edge of the base.
Regarding the rejection of claim 32, it is noted that the primary reference is Cavalcante. Schearer is not used in this rejection and it was a typographical error.
Applicant further argues that there is no argument why “wherein the frame of the first wall is not above the base in a center of the first wall” would be obvious. However, the motivation to also have made the other walls of Cavalcante, a frame and a section, is to provide easy access to the contents of the container through all walls or at least the first wall as stated in the rejection above.
Regarding applicant’s argument of claim 33, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant’s argument of claim 36, that there is nothing in the cited references to indicate that there might be damage to the walls if rotation is not limited, is not persuasive. The prior art is not required to expressly identify such issues for the modification to be obvious. As noted in the rejection, The proposed change is a predictable variation within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding applicant’s argument of claims 10 and 22, the panel material difference does not prevent an obvious substitution of one known hinge type for another.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Regarding applicant’s arguments of claim 12, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding applicant’ s argument that Shearer teaches against using a drop wall, it is noted that Shearer states that when drop gates are used, their size may need to be limited.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAINE GIRMA NEWAY whose telephone number is (571)270-5275. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM- 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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at 571-272-4561. 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.
/BLAINE G NEWAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/Anthony D Stashick/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735