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
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 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berling et al. (DE102016114065B3) in view of Wilcox (U.S. 2016/0039598) and Walsh et al. (U.S. 6,776,300).
Regarding claim 16, Berling et al. teaches a crate 2 for agricultural products, the crate 2 comprising a base 4, a side wall 6-1, 6-2, 6-3, 6-4, and a hinge mechanism (shown in figure 5) pivotably connecting the side wall with the base such that the side wall is movable between a folded configuration (figure 4) and an erected configuration (figure 1) relative to the base.
Further regarding claim 16, Berling et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the flex portion and sampling window. Wilcox teaches that it is known to provide a crate with a flex portion (see center portion of walls at 110 and panel 40; paragraphs [0034]-[0035]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the crate of Berling et al. with the flex portion, as taught by Wilcox, in order to provide an area of reduced thickness to save on material costs while reinforcing the perimeter of the wall for structural integrity, and in order to provide access to the contents while multiple containers are stacked.
Walsh et al. teaches that it is known to provide a crate with a window located offset below a horizontal axis of the side wall and offset from a vertical axis of the side wall (see window 150 in wall 122 of figure 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified crate of Berling et al. with the window being located offset below a horizontal axis of the side wall and offset from a vertical axis of the side wall, as taught by Walsh et al., in order to allow the user to view the contents when the container is stacked.
The modified container of Berling et al. teaches that the crate defines a receiving area for the agricultural products (cavity of Berling et al.), and wherein the flex portion of the side wall is configured to flex relative to the end portions and conform to the agricultural products within the receiving area (as modified by Wilcox; paragraphs [0034]-[0035]), and wherein the flex portion (as modified by Wilcox) of the side wall comprises at least one sampling window (as taught by Walsh et al.) offset below a horizontal axis of the side wall and offset from a vertical axis of the side wall, the at least one sampling window configured to facilitate passage of a sampled product from the receiving area through the side wall.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berling et al. (DE102016114065B3) in view of in view of Wilcox (U.S. 2016/0039598) and Walsh et al. (U.S. 6,776,300), as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Jenkins (GB 2,185,963A).
Regarding claim 17, the modified crate of Berling et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the friction features. Jenkins teaches that it is known to provide a crate with friction features (see elements 19-21, 30, 36; figures 2 and 3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified crate of Berling et al. with friction features, as taught by Jenkins, in order to interlock adjacent crates for transport.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 7-15, 18 and 20 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 3, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 is sufficient to overcome the prior art rejection of the claim set forth in the previous Office Action.
Applicant argues that Berling and Wilcox fail to teach a sampling window offset below a horizontal axis of the side wall and offset from a vertical axis of the side wall. The secondary reference of Wilcox teaches that it is known to provide a flex panel with a sampling window. The secondary reference of Walsh et al. (U.S. 6,776,300) has been added to the rejection for providing a crate with a window which is located offset below a horizontal axis of the side wall and offset from a vertical axis of the side wall. The location of the window has been modified by the teachings of Walsh et al. as it is desirable to view many different areas of the container cavity to inspect the contents.
Conclusion
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 NIKI MARINA ELOSHWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4538. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7: 00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m..
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.
/NIKI M ELOSHWAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
