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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01-16-2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The following phrases are being interpreted as 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitations:
Claim 10, lines 2-3, “complementary engaging means”; and
Claim 20, lines 2-3, “complementary engaging means”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is incomplete for failing to recite sufficient structure to enable the claimed function of each container being “securely engaged” with the support member (see claim 1, lines 6-7). It is noted claim 10 provides sufficient structure.
Claims 2-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as they depend from a rejected claim.
It is unclear if the “temporarily mount” limitation recited in claim 12 is referencing and/or includes the “securely engaged” limitation previously recited in claim 1, line 6.
Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as they depend from a rejected claim.
Claim 18 is incomplete for failing to recite sufficient structure to enable the claimed method step “c.” (see claim 18, lines 6-7). It is noted claim 20 provides sufficient structure.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as they depend from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-13, 15, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Conrad (US#2018/0221233).
Regarding claims 1 and 18, Conrad discloses a device 10 for storing and memorializing biological remains, consisting essentially of: a single, central elongated support member (Fig. 11); and a plurality of containers 100 (Fig. 2A), each container adapted to individually engage directly with said single, central elongated support member while storing said biological remains ([0168]), wherein upon said engagement, each container is securely engaged (via threaded fasteners 138, Figs. 2A-2B, cooperating with respective holes 330) with said single, central elongated support member to form an array of containers along said single, central elongated support member.
Regarding claims 2 and 19, wherein each container 100 is adapted to individually engage directly with or disengage from the single, central elongated support member (Fig. 11) without affecting the engagement of remaining containers in the array (via each container including its own engaging means of threaded fasteners 138, Figs. 2A-2B, for cooperation with respective holes 330).
Regarding claim 3, wherein the biological remains comprise cremated animal or human remains ([0168]).
Regarding claim 4, wherein said single, central elongated support member (Fig. 11) extends out (upward) from an inherent “base” (ground/support surface).
Regarding claim 5, wherein the single, central elongated support member (Fig. 11) comprises four side sides being viewed and labeled as substantially central (opposing front or rear side) and lateral (opposing left or right side) portions.
Regarding claim 6, wherein the central portion is adapted to engage with and support each container 100 such that the weight of each container is supported solely by said central portion (the containers engaging the central portion do not engage the lateral portions).
Regarding claim 7, wherein the lateral portion comprises two wing columns (left and right sides of the support member) extending symmetrically outward (forward or backward) from opposed elongated faces of the central portion (front or rear side of the support member).
Regarding claim 8, wherein each container 100 comprises at least one hollow compartment 110 with at least one orifice opening (at end 114) thereto, the or each container being sealable (via cap 120) to securely carry and store the biological remains.
Regarding claim 9, wherein said container is sealable by a cap 120 adapted to substantially isolate the biological remains from the outside environment.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, wherein said single, central elongated support member (Fig. 11) and each of the plurality of containers 100 comprise complementary engagement means (holes 330 and threaded fasteners 138, respectively) to securely mount each container directly to the single, central elongated support member.
Regarding claim 11, wherein the array comprises containers 100 with at least two different volumes, i.e. containers with different lengths ([0215], lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 12, wherein said single, central elongated support member (Fig. 11) is adapted to temporarily mount each container 100 thereto (via each container including its own engaging means of threaded fasteners 138, Figs. 2A-2B, for removable cooperation with respective holes 330).
Regarding claim 13, wherein the two wing columns (opposing left and right sides of the support member) extend at an angle of 180 degrees (i.e. parallel) with respect to each other.
Regarding claim 15, wherein the single, central elongated support member (Fig. 11) and the containers 100 are constructed at least partially from a weather-resistant metal (e.g. bronze, [0170], [0252]).
Regarding claim 16, further comprising physical markers 130 (plaque, [0173]) adapted to provide a user/viewer, or multiple users/viewers, with information concerning the device or each container and the biological remains stored therein.
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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad (US#2018/0221233) in view of Cox et al. (US#2014/0000134).
Regarding claim 17, Conrad fails to disclose wherein each physical marker 130 is electronically coded to provide said information from a data repository when decoded by the user/viewer. However, as evidenced by Cox, such a configuration is known in the analogous art, see Figs. 4-5 and [0028], wherein physical marker 10 including a QR code is positioned on a funerary container 30 for access to a data repository (website). Therefore, as evidenced by Cox, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Conrad by including an electronic code on the physical marker to provide information from a data repository when decoded by the user/viewer. The rational for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is the proposed combination is based upon combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The inclusion of the electronic code on the physical marker to provide said information from a data repository when decoded by the user/viewer would enhance memorialization of the deceased by increasing access to related information.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Cox fails to disclose or suggest wherein each of said two wing columns comprises attachment brackets adapted to engage with external cladding panels.
Response to Arguments
Regarding currently amended claims 1 and 18, the applicant’s arguments are persuasive as the previously relied upon “box-like” configuration of Fig. 1 of Conrad (US#2018/0221233) does not meet the amended claim language. As accurately argued by the applicant, “…the Applicant respectfully submits that the repository system 10 shown in Fig. 1 of Conrad is a "box-like" arrangement consisting of a series of panels. That is, the repository system 10 in Conrad does not comprise a single side panel that could be construed as a single, central support member, as claimed in the ash interment system of the present invention. There is no panel in Conrad that is situated central to the device. Each and every one of the panels of the box-like arrangement of Conrad are situated around a periphery of the device, and not at the center of the device. There is no single, central support member disclosed by Conrad.“ However, as previously advised of in paragraph 28 of the final rejection mailed 10-22-2025, the Fig. 11 embodiment of Conrad does read on currently amended claims 1 and 18 by disclosing a single, central elongated support member as the Fig. 11 embodiment is column-like as opposed to box-like.
Regarding claim 17 and Cox (US#2014/0000134), the applicant argues the following:
“Given this disclosure, the Applicant respectfully submits that it is clear that Cox is merely directed to providing a means whereby a burial urn can be customized to present with information.
That is, Cox does not disclose an actual device comprising a single, central elongated support member configured to securely engage a plurality of containers (urns) directly to the single, central elongated support member to form an array of said containers along said elongated support member.
Cox fails to suggest or provide any kind of motivation to one of ordinary skill to provide a device having a single, central elongated support member; and fails to contemplate in any way an array of containers engaged along the single, central elongated support member. In other words, Cox fails to cure the deficiencies of Conrad.”
The examiner does not rely upon Cox to disclose a single, central elongated support member. Cox is relied upon as a teaching reference to teach a burial urn can be customized to present with information as conceded by the applicant.
Further, it is noted the transitional phrase “consisting essentially of” now recited in claims 1 and 18 is not fully exclusive and thus is not the equivalent of “consisting of”. A “consisting essentially of” claim occupies a middle ground between closed claims that are written in a ‘consisting of’ format and fully open claims that are drafted in a ‘comprising’ format. PPG Indus. v. Guardian Indus., 156 F.3d 1351, 1354, 48 USPQ2d 1351, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 1998). For the purposes of searching for and applying prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, "consisting essentially of" will be construed as equivalent to "comprising."
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM L MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-7068. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 6:00 PM.
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, Jason San can be reached at (571) 272-6531. 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.
WILLIAM L. MILLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3677
/WILLIAM L MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677