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 .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledged Receipt
This office action is responsive to amendment filed on 22 December 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim(s) 1-6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection are based on amendment(s) to the Claim(s).
With respect to independent Claim(s) 1: In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., selectively) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
With respect to independent Claim(s) 4: In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., inseparable) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Status
In the amendment filed 22 December 2025, independent Claim(s) 1 has/have been amended. Claim(s) 7 is/are newly added. A Final Rejection is being issued in this paper with regards to Claim(s) 1-7.
Examiner’s Notes
With respect to the preamble regarding Claims 1-3 and 7: the preamble of the claim(s) has/have not been given any patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim(s) is/are drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim(s) following the preamble is a self – contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150,152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951).
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prior Art (Applicant’s admitted Prior Art, applicant’s drawings Figs. 1A-1C and applicant’s specification, paragraphs [0030]- [0032]) in view of Shozo (JP-H09279530 A; see reference in its entirety).
With respect to independent Claim 1, The Prior Art disclose(s): An article (Applicant’s admitted Prior Art, applicant’s drawings Figs. 1A-1C; see Examiner’s Notes paragraph above), comprising:
at least two stackable barrels (Fig. 1C: 110 & 110A), including a first stackable barrel (Fig. 1C: 110 ), and a second stackable barrel (Fig. 1C: 110A), each stackable barrel having a barrel shell having an interior surface (Fig. 1B: 110SA), and an exterior surface (Fig. 1B: 110SB), a top panel (Fig. 1B: 110T), an uppermost point (Fig. 1C: 125 ), a bottom edge (Fig. 1C: 110B ), and a generally cylindrical side wall (Fig. 1B: 110S), between the top panel and bottom edge (Fig. 1C), the bottom edge is open (Fig. 1C) , the barrel shells are sized and configured with interior corners (Fig. 1C: 801B ) and exterior corners (Fig. 1C: 801A ) that allow said barrel shells to fully nest with the uppermost point of the second barrel located at a fully nested clearance height (Fig. 1C: 350A ) from the top panel of the first barrel when the second barrel is extended inside the first barrel (Fig. 1C ) and with the exterior corners of the first barrel resting against corresponding interior corners of the second barrel (Fig. 1C: 110 & 110A).
The Prior Art does not specifically disclose: a spacer removably attached within the shell of the first stackable shell near the top panel, said spacer within the first stackable preventing said second stackable from fully nesting within the first stackable by preventing the uppermost point of the second stackable from reaching the fully nested clearance height and thereby preventing the exterior corners of the second from reaching corresponding interior corners of the first stackable.
However, Shozo teach(es) an article (Fig. 1 and paragraph [0009] ) comprising: a spacer (Fig. 4: 2) removably attached within the shell of the first stackable shell near the top panel (paragraph [0002] and see annotated Fig. 2 below), said spacer within the first stackable preventing said second stackable from fully nesting within the first stackable by preventing the uppermost point of the second stackable from reaching the fully nested clearance height (Fig. 2) and thereby preventing the exterior corners of the second from reaching corresponding interior corners of the first stackable (see annotated Fig. 2 below).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide The Prior Art, with the teachings of Shozo, for the purpose of facilitating portability (paragraph [0002]).
PNG
media_image1.png
510
242
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, The Prior Art and Shozo disclose(s) the article of Claim 1.
The combination does not specifically disclose: wherein the spacer is a spacer block that is selectively affixed to the top panel of the first stackable.
However, Shozo further teach(es): wherein the spacer is a spacer block that is selectively affixed to the top panel of the first stackable (Fig. 2 and paragraph [0002] ).
Motivation to combine is the same as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 3, The Prior Art and Shozo disclose(s) the article of Claim 2.
The combination further disclose(s): wherein each stackable barrel is at least one meter in height paragraph [0030] of The Prior Art), has a handle (Fig. 1A: 120 of The Prior Art), attached to the top surface (Fig. 1A of The Prior Art), the handle having the uppermost point (Fig. 1A of The Prior Art), wherein each stackable barrel is tapered inwardly from the bottom edge toward the top panel (Fig. 1A of The Prior Art) and has a plurality of steps (Fig. 1B: 12 of The Prior Art) that each have an outer corner (Fig. 1B: 802A of The Prior Art) and an inner corner (Fig. 1B: 802B of The Prior Art).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over The Prior Art and Shozo further in view of Fletcher, JR (US 2784131; see reference in its entirety).
Regarding Claim(s) 7, The Prior Art and Shozo disclose(s) the article of Claim 2.
The combination does not specifically disclose: wherein the spacer comprises a plurality of spacer blocks positioned within the shell to collectively define a selectable spacing distance between the top panel of the first stackable and the uppermost point of the second stackable.
However, Fletcher teach(es) an article (Fig. 1) including: wherein the spacer comprises a plurality of spacer blocks (Fig. 3: 12-15) positioned within the shell to collectively define a selectable spacing distance between the top panel of the first stackable and the uppermost point of the second stackable (Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide The Prior Art and Shozo, with the further teachings of Fletcher, for the purpose of maintaining stacked objects against lateral displacement (col. 1, lines 23-24).
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prior Art (Applicant’s admitted Prior Art, applicant’s drawings Figs. 1A-1C and applicant’s specification, paragraphs [0030]- [0032]) in view of Kalata et al. (US 3347411; see reference in its entirety).
PNG
media_image2.png
377
286
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to independent Claim 4, The Prior Art disclose(s): A stackable barrel method for stacking at least two stackable barrels (Applicant’s admitted Prior Art, applicant’s drawings Figs. 1A-1C), including:
a first and a second stackable barre (Fig. 1C: 110 & 110A), each stackable barrel having a barrel shell (Fig. 1B: 111) having an exterior surface (Fig. 1B: 110SB) and an interior surface (Fig. 1B: 110SA), a top panel (Fig. 1B: 110T), an uppermost point (Fig. 1C: 125 ), a bottom edge (Fig. 1C: 110B ), and a generally cylindrical side wall (Fig. 1B: 110S) between the top panel and bottom edge (Fig. 1C), the bottom edge is open (Fig. 1C), the barrel shells are sized and configured with interior corners (Fig. 1C: 801B ) and exterior corners (Fig. 1C: 801A ) that allow said barrel shells to fully nest with the uppermost point of one of the barrels located at a fully nested clearance height (Fig. 1C: 350A ) from the top panel of another barrel it is extended inside (Fig. 1C ) and with its exterior corners resting against corresponding interior corners of said other barrel it is inside (Fig. 1C ), comprising the steps of:
Stacking the first and second stackable barrel by inserting the second stackable barrel upwardly into the bottom end of the first stackable barrel (Fig. 1C: 110 & 110A).
The Prior Art does not specifically disclose: Keeping the stackables from sticking together and requiring significant force to separate; Affixing a spacer to the interior surface within the shell of the first stackable near the top panel; Preventing the second from fully nesting by preventing the uppermost point of the second from reaching the fully nested clearance height by interfering the spacer with the uppermost point of the second.
However, Kalata et al. teach(es) a stackable method (Figs. 3-4) comprising: Keeping the stackables from sticking together and requiring significant force to separate (Figs. 3-4); Affixing a spacer (Fig. 3: 28) to the interior surface within the shell of the first stackable (see annotated drawing of Fig. 4 below) near the top panel (Fig. 3: 24; when the stackables are flipped then the top panel is considered 24); Preventing the second from fully nesting by preventing the uppermost point of the second (Fig. 4: 19; when the stackables are flipped then the uppermost point is considered 19) from reaching the fully nested clearance height by interfering the spacer with the uppermost point of the second (see annotated drawing of Fig. 4 below).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide The Prior Art, with the teachings of Kalata et al., for the purpose of avoiding the stackables to be stuck together (column 3, lines 25-30).
PNG
media_image3.png
375
264
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, The Prior Art and Kalata et al. disclose(s) the method of Claim 4.
The combination further disclose(s): wherein the top panel has an inside top surface (Fig. 1C: 110TA of The Prior Art)
The combination does not specifically disclose: wherein the spacer is a block and wherein the step of affixing the spacer to the surface within the shell further comprises attaching the block to the surface.
However, Kalata et al. further teach(es): wherein the spacer is a block (Fig. 3: 28) and wherein the step of affixing the spacer to the surface within the shell further comprises attaching the block to the surface (Fig. 3).
Motivation to combine is the same as Claim 4.
The combination does not specifically disclose: affixing using a fastener.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the use of the particular type of affixing claimed by applicant, i.e., using a fastener, absent any criticality, is considered to be nothing more than a choice of engineering skill, choice or design because 1) neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e., results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as the element is affixed to a surface, as already suggested by The Prior Art and Kalata et al., 2) the affixing claimed by Applicant and the affixing used by The Prior Art and Kalata et al., are well known alternate types of affixing which will perform the same function, if one is replaced with the other, of affixing one element to another, and 3) the use of the particular type of affixing by Applicant is considered to be nothing more than the use of one of numerous and well known alternate types of affixing that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to provide using routine experimentation in order to affix the spacer as already suggested by The Prior Art and Kalata et al.
Therefore, one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would use an alternate type of the affixing in order decrease the cost of manufacturing by utilizing an inexpensive method.
Regarding Claim 6, The Prior Art and Kalata et al. disclose(s) the method of Claim 5.
The combination does not specifically disclose: wherein the fastener is chosen from the group consisting of adhesive, a screw, a bolt, and a hook and loop fastener.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventionIn re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960 ) where the court stated that a selection of a material on the basis of suitability for intended use of an apparatus would be entirely obvious.
Here the material of the fastener (i.e. adhesive, a screw, a bolt, a hook and loop fastener), does not appear to be significant to the function of the method, thus noting the material is absent any criticality, nor would it adversely affect the function of the method of The Prior Art and Kalata et al.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the type of material of the stretchable member in order to suit the needs of the user of the fastener in order to decrease the cost of manufacturing by utilizing an inexpensive material.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
The following reference(s) relate to stackables: Yoshiaka (JP 2000303416 A); JP 4755609 B2.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANIA COURSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2239. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (7am-3:30pm).
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, Kristina Deherrera, can be reached on (303) 297-4237. 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.
/TC/
20 February 2026
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855