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 .
The amendments filed 8/11/2025 have been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: improper grammar “of a second pair of mediate post[s]” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: improper grammar “of the first type container are be in contact with…” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 3,646,609 (Bodenheimer et al. hereinafter) in view of US Patent No. 6,016,634 (Sayer hereinafter).
In re claim 1, with reference to Figs. 1, 2, 5,6 and 8a-8g, Bodenheimer et al. discloses: A freight container system, comprising a group of freight containers (10, 35), each container of the system comprises a first side (12), a second side (12), a third side (14), and a fourth side (16), each side being at an angle of 90 degrees to an adjacent side (see Figs. 1-4), wherein the four corners of the freight containers have corner posts (22), wherein the corner posts are parallel to each other, wherein the group of freight containers comprise a first type container (35), wherein the first type container has a distance from one corner post centre line to a second corner post centreline being a predetermined distance along a respective parallel side of the first type container (See Fig. 8f), wherein the group of containers comprises a second type of container (10) comprising one or more pairs of mediate posts (26), wherein the second type container comprises a distance from the centre line of at least one first pair of corner posts and/or a first pair of mediate posts to a centreline of a second pair of mediate post and/or a second pair of corner posts being equal to or larger than the predetermined distance (mediate post distance of 10 is equal to corner post distance of 35, corner post distance of 10 is larger than corner post distance of 35, see Figs 8f below).
[AltContent: textbox (Predetermined Distance claim 6)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
444
578
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Predetermined Distance)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image2.png
644
444
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Bodenheimer et al. discloses wherein the mediate posts (26) are wider than the corner posts (at 22 in Fig. 5 above), but fails to disclose wherein the one or more pairs of mediate posts are at least double the width of the corner posts to permit a single mediate post to be attached to a first corner post of a first of the first type container and a second corner post of a second of the first type container.
However, with reference to Fig. 1, Sayer discloses a freight container system (10) wherein one pair of mediate posts are at least double the width of the corner posts to permit a single mediate post to be attached to a first corner post of a first of the first type container and a second corner post of a second of the first type container.
[AltContent: textbox (Corner Post Width)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Mediate Post (Double Corner Post Width))][AltContent: oval]
PNG
media_image3.png
434
741
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the mediate posts of Bodenheimer et al. to have been twice the width of the corner posts as taught by Sayer for the purposes of facilitating stacking by increasing the number of attachable load points of the container to achieve various stacking configurations (Sayer, column 6, lines 20-25).
It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed (i.e. “to permit a single mediate post to be attached to a first corner post of a first of the first type container and a second corner post of a second of the first type container“) does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114, II. Note that the double post width of the combination “permits” attaching to two corner/end posts of different first type containers end to end.
In re claim 2, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Bodenheimer et al. in view of Sayer as applied above discloses: A freight container system, wherein when a first type container (35) is positioned on top a second type container (10) a first pair of corner posts (22) of the first type container are positioned in line with a pair of mediate posts (26) of the second type of container, and a second pair of corner posts of the first type container are [be] in contact with a further pair of mediate posts (26) of the second type container (See Fig. 8f above), and wherein the pair of mediate posts are at least double the width of the corner posts to permit a single mediate post to be attached to a first corner post of a first of the first type container and a second corner post of a second of the first type container (as in re claim 1 above).
It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed (i.e. “to permit a single mediate post to be attached to a first corner post of a first of the first type container and a second corner post of a second of the first type container“) does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114, II.
In re claim 3, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Bodenheimer et al. in view of Sayer discloses the claimed invention including wherein each mediate post (26) of the second type container is arranged such that it is able to be loaded with higher load than a corner post of the said first type container and/or a corner post of the second type container, wherein the mediate post is configured to hold a higher load by increased dimension of the mediate post with the same material as compared with a corner post (see Fig. 5, mediate posts 26 are wider than corner posts 22).
In re claim 4, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Bodenheimer et al. in view of Sayer discloses the claimed invention including wherein each mediate post of each second type container has a horizontal width in a first direction, that exceeds the width of a corner post of any of the containers in the container system (i.e. other containers 10), wherein the first direction is the same direction as a line drawn between two corner posts and extending through at least one mediate post of the second type container (see greater width of mediate posts 26, as in re claim 3 above).
In re claim 5, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Bodenheimer et al. in view of Sayer discloses the claimed invention including wherein the width of any container of the system is the same (see figs. 3 and 4).
In re claim 6, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Bodenheimer et al. in view of Sayer discloses: A freight container, wherein the freight container comprises having a first side, a second side, a third side, and a fourth side, an over side (13), an underside (18), each side being at an angle of 90 degrees to an adjacent side, wherein the four corners of the container have corner posts, wherein the corner posts are parallel to each other (as in re claim 1 above), the freight container further comprises at least one pair of mediate posts (26), wherein the mediate posts are positioned between the corner posts (22), wherein the distance between the centreline of a pair of mediate posts to a centreline of at least one of the corner posts pairs and/or to a further pair of mediate posts is larger than a predetermined distance (See Figs. 1 and 8f above), further the predetermined distance is not as small as a distance between the facing peripheries of two adjacent mediate posts and/or corner posts wherein a freight container having the predetermined distance between the corner posts of the container is configured to be supported by the pair of mediate posts and a further pair of mediate posts, (See fig. 8f above), and wherein the at least one pair of mediate posts are at least double the width of the corner posts to permit a single mediate post to be attached to a first corner post of a first container and a second corner post of a second, different container (as in re claim 1 above).
It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed (i.e. “to permit a single mediate post to be attached to a first corner post of a first of the first type container and a second corner post of a second of the first type container“) does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114, II.
In re claim 7, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Bodenheimer et al. in view of Sayer discloses the claimed invention including wherein each mediate post of the second type container is arranged such that it is able to be loaded with higher load than a corner post of the said first type container or a corner post of the second type container, wherein the mediate post is configured to hold higher load by increased dimension of the material of the mediate post compared with the material as compared with a corner post (as in re claim 3 above).
In re claim 8, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Bodenheimer et al. in view of Sayer discloses the claimed invention including wherein each mediate post of the container has a horizontal width in a first direction, that exceeds the width of a corner post of the container, wherein the first direction is the same direction as a line drawn between two corner posts and extending through at least one mediate post of the container (as in re claim 3 above).
In re claim 9, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Bodenheimer et al. in view of Sayer discloses the claimed invention including wherein the predetermined distance is arranged such that any ISO-container can be loaded on top of the container, as long as the container has the same or longer length than the ISO-container that is to be loaded on the container (any ISO container can be placed upon the containers of Bodenheminer et al., as Applicant has not specified any alignment or engagement of corner/mediate posts).
In re claim 10, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Bodenheimer et al. in view of Sayer discloses the claimed invention including wherein the mediate posts are positioned between the corner posts on a respective long side, wherein the distances between the centrelines of the pair of mediate posts to the centrelines of at least one of the corner post pairs on a respective side as the respective mediate posts and/or to the further pair of mediate posts on the same long side are larger than the predetermined distance, further the predetermined distance is not as small as the distance between the facing peripheries of two adjacent mediate posts on the same long side and/or corner posts on the same long side.
In re claim 11, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Bodenheimer et al. in view of Sayer discloses the claimed invention including an over side (13) and an underside (18).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent No. 3,941,247 to Cripe discloses a container which includes corner stacking elements (27) and mediate stacking elements (28), the mediate stacking elements are twice as wide as the corner stacking elements in order to achieve stacking configurations as shown in Figs. 5-8, including wherein below containers are stacked end to end, end/corner stacking elements of the below containers occupying half of the doubled mediate stacking elements.
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 ANDREW T KIRSCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5723. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9a-5p EST.
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at 571-270-5055. 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.
/ANDREW T KIRSCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733