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
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) 28-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosch (DE 10230524 A1) in view of Afferbach (US 20080272132 A1)
Bosch discloses:
28. A tray (figs 1-4) for storing and/or transporting goods, in particular plastic containers (capable of performing the above intended use), comprising two first side walls and two second side walls (side walls in fig 1 of 10, such as with 13s, 14s) and four corner elements (adjacent 25s, 26s), wherein the side walls are connected to the corner elements (as in figs 1-4), wherein the tray has a movable base (adjacent 12 and 24).
With the exception of the following which is disclosed by Afferbach: plug connections (as shown in figs 1-16 including in fig 3b with 140 for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Bosch in view of Afferbach (by providing plug connections) in order to provide enhanced connection and removability such as if the user is desired to be taken down for storage purposes and/or replaced damaged features.
The Combined Reference discloses:
29. The tray according to claim 28, wherein the tray (20) has at least two crossmembers , wherein two opposing side walls are connected to the at least two crossmembers (such as adjacent 21 as in fig 2 of Bosch).
30. The tray according to claim 29, wherein the movable base rests on the crossmembers (fig 2 of Bosch).
31. The tray according to claim 28, wherein the movable base has projections on a periphery thereof for increasing stability (such as projections of base as in fig 2 that are located at ends adjacent “21” of Bosch).
32. The tray according to claim 31, wherein the projections can engage or be brought into engagement in corresponding recesses in the at least two crossmembers so that the movable base can be positioned in the tray (recessed are formed adjacent 21 and the corner, recess within L shape of Bosch).
33. The tray according to claim 28, wherein the plug connections are deformable or deformed for fixing the first and/or the second side walls (device of Afferbach is plastic and would provide a degree of flex and deformation).
Claim(s) 34-35, 37-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Combined Reference as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
Applicant has not traversed Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice, the fact that is it well known to provide wherein recesses are provided in the crossmembers that can brought into engagement with the first side walls of a second tray arranged below a first tray during the stacking of a plurality of trays, wherein the second side walls of the tray have a support element and a support so that the support element of a second side wall of a first tray is arrangeable on the support of a second side wall of a second tray during the stacking of a plurality of trays, wherein the stack is arranged on a frame, wherein the frame is engaged with recesses of the crossmembers of a bottommost tray, wherein the stack is arranged on a frame, wherein the frame is engaged with the support elements of the second side walls of a bottommost tray, wherein the stack has a cover, wherein the cover rests on corresponding supports of the second side walls of an uppermost tray. is taken to be admitted prior art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made in view of Applicant's admitted prior art to provide wherein recesses are provided in the crossmembers that can brought into engagement with the first side walls of a second tray arranged below a first tray during the stacking of a plurality of trays, wherein the second side walls of the tray have a support element and a support so that the support element of a second side wall of a first tray is arrangeable on the support of a second side wall of a second tray during the stacking of a plurality of trays, wherein the stack is arranged on a frame, wherein the frame is engaged with recesses of the crossmembers of a bottommost tray, wherein the stack is arranged on a frame, wherein the frame is engaged with the support elements of the second side walls of a bottommost tray, wherein the stack has a cover, wherein the cover rests on corresponding supports of the second side walls of an uppermost tray in order to provide further enhanced attachment and removability to the device, while also improving storage of the device, while further protecting contents.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 36 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be potentially allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims (with claims 28, 35, 36).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states “The Applicant asserts that the teaching of Bosch '524 and of Afferbach '132 are not compatible. Afferbach '132 requires a fixed floor with appropriate means for attaching side walls to it, whereas Bosch '524 requires that the frame be formed in one piece and that the floor remains movable. This results from the one-piece design of the support extending along the side walls (i.e. are arranged surrounding). If the support is manufactured in one piece, the frame, including its corner connectors, has to be formed in one piece as well. The Applicant contends, there is therefore neither a reason nor a hint for the skilled person to deviate from the teaching of Bosch '524 (one-piece design) and instead resort to a teaching that is not compatible with a movable floor.” The Office notes that Afferbach is the secondary reference, and in response to applicant's argument that, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., one piece) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, Applicant appears to be arguing the process by which the devices are formed. The end product is attached together and is therefore one-piece. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the combination is obvious in order to provide enhanced connection and removability such as if the user is desired to be taken down for storage purposes and/or replaced damaged features. Accordingly, Applicant/Appellant has not demonstrated error in the factual findings or reasoning set forth by the Office and the Office must maintain the rejections.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 D PERREAULT whose telephone number is (571)270-5427. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00am-5:30pm.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571)272-4561. 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 D PERREAULT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights