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 Status
Claims 3, 4, 11, 19, 23-26 and 28-32 have been canceled. Claims 1, 2, 5-10, 12-18, 20-22, 27 and 32 are pending.
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of 1, 2 and 4-10 in the reply filed on 15 April 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-18, 20-22 and 27 stand withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 15 April 2025.
Applicant Behavior
The Office will withdrawal the previous comments about applicant’s behavior. Applicant is correct that the Office supplied a machine translation on 14 February 2025. However, the Office is relying on the human translation provided by applicant Exhibit A attached to the 132 declaration of Leigh Jowett filed 19 November 2025 as part of applicant’s attempt at finding facts and evidence.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-10 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 adds the last line stating “the lower base member extends wholly across the base.” Wholly is defined to mean entirely; fully; completely. Such a definition means that there can be no holes or openings anywhere in the lower base member. See Fig. 2 of applicant’s disclosure which clearly discloses apertures 27 in the lower base member 20. The “extends wholly across the base” language was added by amendment and is not originally present in applicant’s disclosure. Applicant’s original disclosure fails to support the claim language.
This is a new matter rejection.
PNG
media_image1.png
504
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-9 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by DE ‘686.
DE ‘686 discloses a base (floor 2) for a container, the base comprising an upper base member (upper floor plate 21), a lower base member (lower floor plate 22), and a spacing arrangement between the upper and lower base members; wherein the spacing arrangement comprises a plurality of first ribs (first ribs 20 extend diagonally from bottom right to top left in Fig. 7) and a plurality of second ribs (second ribs 20 extend diagonally from top right to bottom left in Fig. 7) between the upper and lower base members, the first and second ribs extending diagonally relative to the edges of the base (see Fig. 4-7), and the first ribs extending transverse to the second ribs, wherein the first ribs are arranged alongside one another, and the second ribs are arranged alongside one another; and wherein the lower base member extends wholly across the base [relying on the human translation presented as Exhibit A within the 132 declaration submitted 19 November 2025 which states that the base plate 22 is recessed in a central region (meaning that the lower base member (22) extends wholly across the base with no gaps and covers the entire area of the base)].
Re claim 2, the side walls extend from the upper base member.
Re claim 5, the lower base member has opposite first corner regions (corner regions 30 adjacent to oblique direction indicators R1 and R3), the first ribs 20 extending inwardly from said opposite first corner regions of the lower base member (see Fig. 7).
Re claim 6, the spacing arrangement comprises two sets of the first ribs (one set of parallel ribs 20 adjacent to indicator R1 and a second set of parallel ribs 20 adjacent to indicator R3, see Fig. 7), each set of first ribs extending from a respective one of the first corner regions to a central region of the base.
Re claim 7, the lower base member has opposite second corner regions (corner regions 30 adjacent to oblique direction indicators R2 and R4), the second ribs 20 extending inwardly from said opposite second corner regions of the lower base member (see Fig. 7).
Re claim 8, the spacing arrangement comprises two sets of the second ribs (one set of parallel ribs 20 adjacent to indicator R2 and a second set of parallel ribs 20 adjacent to indicator R4, see Fig. 7), each set of second ribs extending from a respective one of the second corner regions.
Re claim 9, a transverse third rib (third rib defined as the central rectangular rib as shown in Fig. 7 with the longitudinally bisecting ribs that extend outwardly from the central rectangular rib and with the transversely bisecting ribs that extend outwardly from the rectangular rib as shown in Fig. 7) extends across the first ribs, the third rib extending from one of the second ribs in each of the two sets of second ribs, and each of the first ribs of the two sets of first ribs extend to the third rib.
Re claim 33, the lower base member comprises a central region and a surface which surrounds the central region, wherein the central region provides a recessed region in the lower surface of the lower base member relative to the surface which surrounds the central region.
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(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE ‘686 in view of Prodel (DE 19501566).
DE ‘686 discloses that the lower base member (lower base member) has upper and lower surfaces and a central region. DE ‘686 fails to disclose a raised region in the upper surface and a recessed region in the lower surface of the central region of the lower base member (lower base member). Prodel teaches a similar base configuration having a first (upper) base member and a second (lower) base member with ribs extending between the base members and the lower base member having an upper surface, a lower surface and a central region, a raised region in the upper surface and a recessed region in the lower surface of the central region of the lower base member. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the lower member to have a raised region in the upper surface and a recessed region in the lower surface in the central region to provide for efficient drainage of liquid in the intermediate space between the upper and lower base members to prevent liquid retention in the central region of the intermediate space to prevent contamination and quick drying after washing.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-10 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE ‘686 in view of Prodel (DE 19501566).
This rejection is being applied if it should be deemed that the lower base member of DE ‘686 fails to extend wholly across the base.
Prodel teaches a similar base configuration having a first (upper) base member and a second (lower) base member with ribs extending between the base members and the lower base member having an upper surface, a lower surface and a central region, a raised region in the upper surface and a recessed region in the lower surface of the central region of the lower base member. Prodel teaches that the lower base member extends wholly across the base as shown in Fig. 6 and 7 insofar as shown by applicant in that Wasserablaufocher (drain holes) 10 are shown in Fig. 8-9. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the lower base member to extend wholly across the base to cover any holes or gaps in the central area of the lower base member to prevent liquid retention in the central region of the intermediate space to prevent contamination.
Re claim 10, DE ‘686 discloses that the lower base member (lower base member) has upper and lower surfaces and a central region. DE ‘686 fails to disclose a raised region in the upper surface and a recessed region in the lower surface of the central region of the lower base member (lower base member). Prodel teaches a similar base configuration having a first (upper) base member and a second (lower) base member with ribs extending between the base members and the lower base member having an upper surface, a lower surface and a central region, a raised region in the upper surface and a recessed region in the lower surface of the central region of the lower base member. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the lower member to have a raised region in the upper surface and a recessed region in the lower surface in the central region to provide for efficient drainage of liquid in the intermediate space between the upper and lower base members to prevent liquid retention in the central region of the intermediate space to prevent contamination and quick drying after washing.
Re claim 33, this rejection is being applied if it should be deemed that the lower base member of DE ‘686 fails to provide a central recessed region. Prodel teaches a lower base member comprises a central region and a surface which surrounds the central region, wherein the central region provides a recessed region in the lower surface of the lower base member relative to the surface which surrounds the central region. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the lower member to have a central region and a surface which surrounds the central region, wherein the central region provides a recessed region in the lower surface of the lower base member relative to the surface which surrounds the central region to provide for efficient drainage of liquid in the intermediate space between the upper and lower base members to prevent liquid retention in the central region of the intermediate space to prevent contamination and quick drying after washing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The 132 declaration is moot. The 132 declaration is not being applied to an obviousness rejection and doesn’t present secondary considerations. The anticipation rejection can’t be overcome by a 132 declaration. It is premature to present a 132 declaration in rebuttal of an anticipated obviousness rejection.
Applicant’s reasoning is not well understood. Applicant presents a human translation of DE ‘686 to establish that there is a recess in the lower base member. However, applicant argues that the disclosure of DE ‘686 is unclear and ambiguous and that the Office should not rely on an unclear, ambiguous prior art reference (DE ‘686) and disregard that the recess will provide a lower base member that extends wholly across the base. Why should the Office disregard facts or evidence submitted by applicant?
Regardless of the presence of an outer, circumferential raceway, the Office relies upon a base plate 22 which is recessed in a central region. Office believes that this recessed construction is different than a base plate with a central opening.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN J CASTELLANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4535. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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 on 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.
sjc/STEPHEN J CASTELLANO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights