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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 15, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Orgeldinger (U.S. 2013/0240522). Orgeldinger a crate 1 for agricultural products, the crate comprising a base 2, a side wall4a, 4b, 6a, 6b, and a hinge mechanism 40a, 40c, 40d, 40h pivotably connecting the side wall with the base such that the side wall is movable between a folded configuration and an erected configuration relative to the base (figures 9A 10A, 11A), wherein the hinge mechanism comprises a hinge at 50 (figure 6) extending from a lower edge 66 of the side wall, the hinge comprising a rod (shown at lead line 50; figure 6) supported by at least one arm 64, wherein the at least one arm 64 spaces the rod 50 apart from the lower edge 66 of the sidewall, wherein the rod 50 comprises opposing ends (figure 8) and is elongated between the opposing ends (figure 8), and wherein the rod 50 further comprises a protrusion 80b extending outwards from the rod between the opposing ends, and a hinge receiver 54 (figure 7A) defined by the base, the hinge receiver 54 defining a receiving area with an opening (upper portion of 54 at lead line 54 in figure 9A), wherein the opening is at a top end of the hinge receiver (figure 9A), wherein the opening defines a minimum width of the receiving area, wherein the receiving area further comprises a receiving area surface below the top end (figure 9A), wherein the hinge receiver further comprises a ledge (on opposite side of opening from 78b; figure 11A above 80b) on the receiving area surface, wherein the rod 50 of the hinge is positionable into the receiving area via the opening (figure 9A), and wherein the protrusion 80b of the rod is configured to selectively engage the ledge within the receiving area (figure 11A).
Regarding claim 2, the width is defined in a direction transverse (horizontally as shown in figure 9A) to a pivot axis of the hinge mechanism.
Regarding claim 3, in the erected configuration (figure 11A), the rod at 50 is arranged adjacent and/or in contact with a bottom end of the hinge receiver (lower surface of 78b is considered part of bottom end of hinge receiver).
Regarding claim 11, the side wall is a first side wall 6a and the crate further comprises a second side wall 6b having a plurality of label fingers for holding a label on the crate (at lead line 6b in figure 4).
Regarding claim 13, the side wall is a first side wall and the crate further comprises a second side wall, wherein the second side wall further comprises a latch 100 arranged to secure the first side wall with the second side wall together in the erected configuration (paragraph [0080]).
Regarding claim 14, the latch 100 is integral with the second side wall and movable or flexible to flex inwards or outwards relative to the second side wall (paragraph [0080]).
Regarding claim 15, the first side wall comprises a stopper 106 arranged to engage the latch and obstruct inadvertent flexing inward of the latch and block inadvertent actuation of the latch (figures 13A, 13B).
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.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orgeldinger (U.S. 2013/0240522) in view of Wilcox (U.S. 2016/0039598).
Regarding claim 7, Orgeldinger discloses the claimed invention except for the flex portion. Wilcox teaches that it is known to provide a crate with a flex portion (see center portion of walls in at 110, 120; 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 Orgeldinger 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.
Regarding claim 16, Orgeldinger teaches a crate 1 for agricultural products, the crate 1 comprising a base 2, a side wall 4a, 4b, 6a, 6b, and a hinge mechanism at 50 pivotably connecting the side wall with the base such that the side wall is movable between a folded configuration (figure 9A) and an erected configuration (figure 11A) relative to the base.
Further regarding claim 16, Orgeldinger discloses the claimed invention except for the flex portion. Wilcox teaches that it is known to provide a crate with a flex portion (see center portion of walls at 110; 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 Orgeldinger 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.
The modified container of Orgeldinger teaches that the crate defines a receiving area for the agricultural products (cavity of Orgeldinger), 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]).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orgeldinger (U.S. 2013/0240522) in view of Jenkins (GB 2,185,963A).
Regarding claim 8, Orgeldinger 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 crate of Orgeldinger with friction features, as taught by Jenkins, in order to interlock adjacent crates for transport.
Regarding claim 9, the friction features, as modified by Jenkins above, comprise a plurality of ribs, each rib of the plurality of ribs extending from proximate the first end portion to proximate the second end portion (elements 21 of Jenkins).
Regarding claim 10, wherein the side wall is a first side wall and the crate further comprises a second side wall having a mounting surface that is smooth to facilitate installation of a label (at lead line 6b in figure 4).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orgeldinger (U.S. 2013/0240522) in view of Wilcox (U.S. 2017/0183126).
Regarding claim 12, Orgeldinger discloses the claimed invention except for the windows. Wilcox teaches that it is known to provide a crate with windows (see first window at 102 and second window at 132). 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 Orgeldinger with the windows, as taught by Wilcox, in order to provide ventilation and easy access to the contents.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orgeldinger (U.S. 2013/0240522) in view of in view of Wilcox (U.S. 2016/0039598), as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Jenkins (GB 2,185,963A).
Regarding claim 17, the modified crate of Orgeldinger 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 Orgeldinger with friction features, as taught by Jenkins, in order to interlock adjacent crates for transport.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orgeldinger (U.S. 2013/0240522) in view of Deeter (U.S. 5,992,665).
Regarding claim 18, Orgeldinger teaches a crate 1 for agricultural products, the crate comprising a base 2, a side wall 4a, 4b, 6a, 6b, and a hinge mechanism at 50 pivotably connecting the side wall with the base such that the side wall is movable between a folded configuration (figure 9A) and an erected configuration (figure 11A) relative to the base, wherein the side wall comprises a first side 6a, a second side 6b opposite the first side, a first end portion4a, a second end portion 4b opposite the first end portion, and a center portion with a surface on the first side of the side wall extending continuously between the first and second end portions along a length of the side wall (center portion of wall 6a; figure 1). Wherein in the erected configuration (figure 11A), the crate defines a receiving area for the agricultural products wherein in the erected configuration (figure 1), the second side at least partially defines the receiving area and the first side faces away from the receiving area.
Further regarding claim 18, Orgeldinger discloses the claimed invention except for the friction features. Deeter teaches that it is known to provide a crate with friction features (see elements 68, 72; figure 4). 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 Orgeldinger with friction features, as taught by Deeter, in order to interlock adjacent crates for transport.
Regarding claim 19, the friction features comprise a plurality of ribs, each rib of the plurality of ribs extending from proximate the first end portion to proximate the second end portion (see elements 68, 72; figure 3 and 4 of Deeter).
Regarding claim 20, the side wall is a first side wall and the crate further comprises a second side wall having a mounting surface that is smooth to facilitate installation of a label (at lead line 6b in figure 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 15, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Orgeldinger does not teach “a hinge extending from a lower edge of the side wall, the hinge comprising a rod supported by at least one arm, wherein the at least one arm spaces the rod apart from the lower edge of the side wall wherein the rod comprises opposing ends and is elongated between the opposing ends, and wherein the rod further comprises a protrusion extending outwards from the rod between the opposing ends” and from the rod between the opposing ends” and “a hinge receiver defined by the base, the hinge receiver defining a receiving area with an opening, wherein the opening is at a top end of the hinge receiver, wherein the opening defines a minimum width of the receiving area, wherein the receiving area further comprises a receiving area surface below the top end, wherein the hinge receiver further comprises a ledge on the receiving area surface, wherein the rod of the hinge is positionable into the receiving area via the opening, and wherein the protrusion of the rod is configured to selectively engage the ledge within the receiving area” as recited in amended claim 1. It is the examiner’s position that Orgeldinger meets these limitations of claim 1. Specifically, Orgeldinger teaches a hinge 50 extending from a lower edge 66 of the side wall (figure 5), the hinge 50 comprising a rod 50 supported by at least one arm 64, wherein the at least one arm 64 spaces the rod 50 apart from the lower edge of the side wall (figure 5) wherein the rod 50 comprises opposing ends and is elongated between the opposing ends (figure 5), and wherein the rod 50 further comprises a protrusion 80b extending outwards from the rod between the opposing ends (figure 9A) and from the rod between the opposing ends and a hinge receiver at 54 defined by the base, the hinge receiver defining a receiving area with an opening (upper opening of 54), wherein the opening is at a top end of the hinge receiver (figure 9A), wherein the opening defines a minimum width of the receiving area (figure 9A), wherein the receiving area further comprises a receiving area surface below the top end, wherein the hinge receiver further comprises a ledge (lower surface of protrusion opposite 78b) on the receiving area surface, wherein the rod of the hinge is positionable into the receiving area via the opening (figure 9A), and wherein the protrusion of the rod is configured to selectively engage the ledge within the receiving area (figure 11a) as recited in amended claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, Applicant argues that the modified device of Orgeldinger does not teach or suggest at least “the side wall comprises a first end portion, a second end portion, and a flex portion extending continuously between the first and second end portions along a length of the side wall, the flex portion including a center portion, wherein a thickness of the flex portion is less a thickness of each end portion,” and “wherein, in the erected configuration of the side wall, the crate defines a receiving area for the agricultural products, 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 recited in amended claim 16. It is the examiner’s position that the modified device of Orgeldinger meets these limitations of claim 16. Specifically, Wilcox teaches teach or suggest at least the side wall 11 comprises a first end portion, a second end portion, and a flex portion extending continuously between the first and second end portions along a length of the side wall (paragraphs [0034]-[0035] of Wilcox), the flex portion including a center portion, wherein a thickness of the flex portion is less a thickness of each end portion, and wherein, in the erected configuration of the side wall, the crate defines a receiving area for the agricultural products (cavity of Orgeldinger), 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 (taught by Wilcox) as recited in amended claim 16.
Regarding claim 18, Applicant argues that Orgeldinger, as modified by Deeter, does not teach or suggest at least “the side wall comprises a first side, a second side opposite the first side, a first end portion, a second end portion opposite the first end portion, and a center portion with a surface on the first side of the side wall extending continuously between the first and second end portions along a length of the side wall, wherein, in the erected configuration, the crate defines a receiving area for the agricultural products, wherein, in the erected configuration, the second side at least partially defines the receiving area and the first side faces away from the receiving area, wherein the center portion on the first side and between the first and second end portions comprises a plurality of friction features extending outwards from the surface, and wherein the plurality of friction features are configured to frictionally engage corresponding friction features of another crate during lifting” as recited in amended claim 18. It is the examiner’s position that the modified device of Orgeldinger meets these limitations of claim 18. Specifically, Orgeldinger teaches the side wall comprises a first side 6a, a second side 6b opposite the first side, a first end portion4a, a second end portion 4b opposite the first end portion, and a center portion with a surface on the first side of the side wall extending continuously between the first and second end portions along a length of the side wall (center portion of wall 6a; figure 1). Wherein in the erected configuration (figure 11A), the crate defines a receiving area for the agricultural products wherein in the erected configuration (figure 1), the second side at least partially defines the receiving area and the first side faces away from the receiving area. Deeter teaches a plurality of friction features extending outwardly from the surface (figures 2 and 3 of Deeter), wherein the plurality of friction features are configured to frictionally engage corresponding friction features of another crate during lifting (figure 4 of Deeter)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE NON-FINAL.
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