Container

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 § 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 1-4, 6-7 and 9-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 6,691,885)in view of Boycott (US 5,671,974). Regarding claim 1, Brown (figs. 1, 9 and 18-20) discloses a folding container comprising: a base 12, a first mount 226 provided to the base, a first side wall or upper member 44, a translational hinge 62, which connects the first side wall 44 to the first mount 226 and which translational hinge 62 is configured to facilitate rotational and translational movement of the first side wall 44 in respect to the mount 226 during transition between (1) an erected state of the first side wall 44, in which the first side wall 44 extends from the mount 226 in a generally upright orientation in respect to the base 12,and (2) a folded state of the first side wall 44, in which the first side wall 44 extends from the mount 226 in a generally parallel orientation in respect to the base 12,and an upright lock comprising locking pin or peg 68, which is fixed to and extends from the first side wall, and a catch 252a, which is provided to the mount and comprises an elongated recess 48 configured to receive the peg during transition between the erected and folded state of the first side wall and to provide a threshold for keeping the first side wall in the erected state. Brown fails to disclose the recess being elongated, at least in part, in a direction that is slanted in respect to the upright orientation. However, Boycott teaches an elongated recess 46 angled on its upper side 47 (figs. 2 and 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 recess 48 of Brown, slated with respect to the upright orientation, for easy insertion of the engaging pin, as taught by Boycott in col. 3, lines 7-12. Regarding claim 2, It is noted that the threshold of the modified Brown is set to work against gravity (figs. 1 and 2 of Boycott). Regarding claim 3, Brown further discloses the bottom end of the catch 48 being relieved substantially along the direction of elongation of the recess (figs. 9, 16). Regarding claim 4, Brown further discloses the mount 226 extending from the base along the upright orientation (fig. 20). Regarding claim 6, Brown further discloses the base being quadrangular in shape with four such mounts 226, one provided to each one of the four corners, wherein the first side wall connects a first pair of adjacent mounts 226 together (figs. 18-20). Regarding claim 7, Brown further discloses a second side wall 69 opposing the first side wall and being connected to the base similarly to the first side wall through a translational hinge between the second side wall 69 and a respective second pair of adjacent mounts 226 (figs. 3-4 and 18-20). Regarding claim 9, Brown further discloses the first and second side wall being permanently attached side walls, wherein the container comprises a first removable side wall that is connected between the first and second permanently attached side walls (abstract). Regarding claim 10, Brown further discloses the container further comprising a second removable side wall that is connected between the first and second permanently attached side walls and opposes the first removable side wall (abstract). Regarding claims 11-12, Brown further discloses a quick attachment mechanism 126, 192 between first and second removable side wall and the first and second permanently attached side walls that is configured to allow the first and second removable side wall to be removably attached to the first and second permanently attached side walls; wherein the quick attachment mechanism 126, 192 comprises cooperating counterparts provided to the frames of the adjacent first and second permanently attached side walls and the first and/or second removable side wall (figs. 12 and 19). Regarding claims 13-14, Brown further discloses the first and second removable side walls comprising a plurality of panels 94, 92 that are connected to each other through a horizontal hinge for opening said side walls in sequence; wherein at least a top panel 92 of the first and second removable side walls 90 comprise an attachment mechanism 126 cooperating with the frame of the adjacent first and second permanently attached side walls for securing the panel into a closed state (figs. 3 and 12). Regarding claim 15, Brown further discloses the frames of the first and second permanently attached side walls comprising a support plates 196 capable receiving another such container stacked onto the container Regarding claim 16, Brown further discloses the bottom end of the catch 48 being relieved substantially along the direction of elongation of the recess (figs. 9, 16). Regarding claims 17-18, Brown further discloses the mount 226 extending from the base along the upright orientation (fig. 20). Claims 5 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 6,691,885)in view of Boycott (US 5,671,974) further in view of Coogan (US 5,415,311). Regarding claims 5 and 19-20, Brown further discloses the mount 226 including a body, which has a proximal end attached to the base and a distal end opposing the proximal end (fig. 20). However, the modified Brown fails to disclose a support provided to the distal end of the body, which support is configured to receive another such container stacked onto the container. Coogan teaches a mount having a support 22 provided to the distal end of the body, which support 22 is configured to receive another such container stacked onto the container (fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have provided the mount 226 of the modified Brown, a support, so as to engage and locate corresponding bottom corner portions of a base of an adjacent container when stacked there on top as taught by Coogan in col. 3, lines 32-36. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 6,691,885)in view of Boycott (US 5,671,974) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Bazany (US 6,540,096). Regarding claim 8, Brown further discloses the first side wall comprises a frame 79, 258 and a cover or mesh delimited by the frame (fig. 18). However, the modified Brown fails to disclose the cover comprises an opening for receiving the catch in the erected state of the first side wall 17 (fig. 2). Bazany teaches a collapsible wall being erected by a catch 80 extending towards the collapsible wall and corresponding pin 86 and clearance provided on the collapsible wall (fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have extended the catch of the modified Brown, towards the first wall and provided clearance for the catch, as taught by Bazany, to avoid interference with external structures. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. ConclusionAny 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