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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/2/26 has been entered.
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 1-10 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coogan (US 5,415,311) in view of Bazany (US 6,540,096) further in view of Morrison (US 2,520,508).
Regarding claim 1, Coogan (figs. 1-5) discloses a folding container comprising:
a base 11,
a first mount 12 provided to the base,
a first side wall 17,
a translational hinge 19, which connects the first side wall 17 to the first mount 12 and which translational hinge 19 is configured to facilitate rotational and translational movement of the first side wall 17 in respect to the mount 12 during transition between (1) an erected state of the first side wall 17, in which the first side wall 17 extends from the mount 12 in a generally upright orientation in respect to the base 11,and (2) a folded state of the first side wall 17, in which the first side wall 17 extends from the mount 12 in a generally parallel orientation in respect to the base 11,and
an upright lock 41.
Coogan fails to disclose the upright lock 41 discussed above comprising a peg, which is fixed to and extends from the first side wall, and
a catch, which is provided to the mount and comprises an elongated recess 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,
wherein the recess is elongated, at least in part, in a direction that is slanted in respect to the upright orientation.
However, Bazany teaches a lock having a catch 80 with an elongated recess 82 to receive a peg 84 during transition between an erected and folded state (fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute a lock with a catch with a recess and corresponding peg, as for example, taught by the Bazany reference for the lock 41 of Coogan to provide reliable engagement of the collapsible wall, as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that known fastening mechanisms are interchangeable to achieve secure retention.
Further, Morrison teaches a catch having slanted recess 12 (fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to modify the recess 82 of the modified Coogan, to be slanted as taught by Morrison, in order to facilitate engagement and retention between the recess and peg, to improve guiding and securing latching without having to make the peg movable.
Regarding claim 2, It is noted that the threshold of the modified Coogan is set to work against gravity (figs. 3 and 3A of Bazany).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Coogan further discloses the bottom end of the catch is relieved substantially along the direction of elongation of the recess(figs. 3 and 3A of Bazany).
Regarding claim 4, Coogan further discloses the mount 12 extends from the base 11 along the upright orientation (figs. 4-5).
Regarding claims 5 and 19-20, Coogan further discloses the mount comprises:
a body, which has a proximal end attached to the base 11 and a distal end opposing the proximal end, and
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).
Regarding claim 6, Coogan further discloses the base 11 is quadrangular in shape with four such mounts 12, one provided to each one of the four corners, wherein the first side wall 17 connects a first pair of adjacent mounts 12 together (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Coogan further discloses the container further comprising a second side wall 18 opposing the first side wall 17 and being connected to the base 11 similarly to the first side wall 17 through a translational hinge between the second side wall and a respective second pair of adjacent mounts 12 (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Coogan further discloses the first side wall 17 comprises a frame17’ and a cover delimited by the frame 17’, which cover comprises an opening 25 for receiving the catch in the erected state of the first side wall 17 (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Coogan further discloses the first and second side wall 17, 18 being permanently attached side walls, wherein the container comprises a first removable side wall 15 that is connected between the first and second permanently attached side walls (fig. 1 and col. 2, lines 63-68).
Regarding claim 10, Coogan further discloses the container further comprising a second removable side wall 16 that is connected between the first and second permanently attached side walls 17, 18 and opposes the first removable side wall 15 (fig. 1 and col. 2, lines 63-68).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Coogan further discloses the bottom end of the catch 80 (of Bazany) being relieved substantially along the direction of elongation of the recess (figs. 3 and 3A).
Regarding claims 17-18, Coogan further discloses the mount 12 extending from the base 11 along the upright orientation (fig. 1).
Claims 11-12 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coogan (US 5,415,311) in view of Bazany (US 6,540,096) and Morrison (US 2,520,508) as applied to claims 9-10 above, further in view of over Brown (US 6,691,885).
Regarding claims 11-12, the modified Coogan discloses all elements of the claimed invention as applied to claim 10 above, but fails to disclose:
the container further comprising a quick attachment mechanism between the first and/or second removable side wall(s) and the first and second permanently attached side walls that is configured to allow the first and/or second removable side wall(s) to be removably attached to the first and second permanently attached side walls;
wherein the quick attachment mechanism 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(s).
However, Brown teaches 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 (fig. 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have provided a quick attachment mechanism between adjacent sidewalls, to ensure that the container retains its erected shape.
Regarding claims 13-14, the modified Coogan discloses all elements of the claimed invention as applied to claim 9 above, except for:
the first and/or second removable side wall(s) comprising a plurality of panels that are connected to each other through a horizontal hinge for opening said side walls in sequence;
wherein at least a top panel of the first and/or second removable side wall(s) comprises an attachment mechanism cooperating with the frame of the adjacent first and second permanently attached side walls for securing the panel into a closed state.
However, Brown teaches 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).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have provided a quick attachment mechanism between adjacent sidewalls, and to have provided the removable side walls a plurality of panels, as thought by Brown, to ensure that the container retains its erected shape and easily access the content of the container.
Regarding claim 15, Coogan further discloses the frames of the first and second permanently attached side walls 17, 18 comprising a support plates 21 capable receiving another such container stacked onto the container
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.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights