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 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arnolds (US 3,565,146).
Regarding claim 1, Arnolds (figs. 1-4) discloses a method comprising:
inverting a first container 6, wherein the first container comprises:
a first base 8,one or more first walls extending from the first base 8 to form an interior space of the first container 6 for receiving first articles,
one or more first positive features disposed on a top surface of the one or more first walls, wherein the one or more first positive features are flush with an inner edge of the top surface of the one or more first walls, and
one or more first negative features comprising cavities disposed on the inner edge of the top surface of the one or more first walls;
placing the inverted first container 6 on a second container 5, wherein the second container comprises:
a second base ,one or more second walls extending from the second base to form an interior space of the second container for receiving articles, one or more second positive features 10 disposed on a top surface of the one or more second walls, wherein the one or more second positive features 10 are flush with an inner edge of the top surface 21 of the one or more second walls, and
one or more second negative features 9 comprising cavities disposed on the inner edge of the top surface of the one or more second walls; and
interlocking the inverted first container 6 with the second container 5 by engaging the one or more first positive features with the one or more second negative features and engaging the one or more second positive features within the one or more first negative features.
Claims 9-17 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ramsay (US 5,042,674).
Regarding claim 9, Ramsay (fig. 6) discloses a container 30 comprising:
a base ;
one or more walls extending from the base to form an interior space of the container capable of receiving articles to be scanned;
a container identification holder (recess formed between the vertical ribs on the walls) comprising a recessed space in at least one wall of the one or more walls, wherein the container identification holder is dimensioned to receive and secure an object that identifies the container when scanned; and
a mechanism 38, 50 or 96 on a top edge of one or more walls, wherein the mechanism 38, 50 facilitates a connection with another container 30.
Regarding claim 10, Ramsay further discloses the mechanism 38, 50 including one or more positive features 38, and
the container further comprising: one or more empty spaces 50 corresponding with the one or more positive features 38 on the top edge of the container, wherein the interlock with the other container 30 is further facilitated by the one or more empty spaces 50 (fig. 6).
Regarding claim 11, Ramsay further discloses the mechanism 38, 50 including one or more positive features 38, and
the container further comprising: one or more negative features 50 corresponding with the one or more positive features 38 on the top edge of the container 30, wherein the interlock with the other container 30 is further facilitated by the one or more negative features 50 (fig. 6).
Regarding claim 12, Ramsay further discloses the one or more positive features 38 and the one or more negative features 50 are aligned with the one or more walls (fig. 6).
Regarding claim 13, Ramsay further discloses each of the one or more positive features 38 being a protrusion and each of the one or more negative features 50 being a concave depression, and wherein first dimensions and first shape of the one or more positive features 38 correspond with second dimensions and second shape of the one or more negative features 50 (fig. 6).
Regarding claim 14, Ramsay further discloses the container 30 interlocks with the other container 30 by engaging the one or more positive features 38 of the container 30 with one or more negative features 50 of the other container 30 and by engaging the one or more negative features 50 of the container 30 with one or more positive features 38 of the other container 30 (fig. 6).
Regarding claim 15, Ramsay further discloses the container 30 storing one or more articles or goods, wherein the container is capable of being used for transit through a scanner (fig. 6 and col. 1, lines 9-12).
Regarding claim 16, Ramsay further discloses the mechanism 96 is a non-slip mechanism that includes a gripping mechanism that includes a gripping material 100 (figs. 2 and 6).
Regarding claim 17, Ramsay further discloses one or more supportive structures 64 on the bottom of the container (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 23, the claim further defines the intended use of the container. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
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.
Claims 1, 7-8, 21-22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramsay (US 5,042,674) in view of Arnolds (US 3,565,146).
Alternatively, regarding claim 1, Ramsay (fig.6) discloses a method comprising:
inverting a first container 30, wherein the first container 30 comprises:
a first base, one or more first walls extending from the first base to form an interior space of the first container 30 for receiving first articles,
one or more first positive features 38 disposed on a top surface of the one or more first walls, and
one or more first negative features 50 comprising cavities,
placing the inverted first container 30 on a second container 30, wherein the second container comprises:
a second base, one or more second walls extending from the second base to form an interior space of the second container for receiving articles, one or more second positive features 38 disposed on a top surface of the one or more second walls, and
one or more second negative features 50 comprising cavities, and
interlocking the inverted first container 30 with the second container 30 by engaging the one or more first positive features 38 with the one or more second negative features 50 and engaging the one or more second positive features 38 within the one or more first negative features 50.
Ramsay fails to disclose the one or more first positive features 38 being flush with an inner edge of the top surface of the one or more walls, and the cavities being disposed on the inner edge of the top surface of the one or more walls.
Arnolds teaches two containers 5 and 6 being engaged by a positive feature 10 flush with an inner edge of a top surface of a wall, and corresponding cavities disposed on an inner edge of the wall (fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to substitute a positive feature flush with an inner edge of the wall of the container and a corresponding cavity as, for example, taught by the Arnolds reference for the mechanism of Ramsay, since it has been held that when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 50-51, 148 USPQ 479, 483 (1966)). It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 7, Ramsay further discloses the first base of the first container 30 being rectangular and the one or more first walls of the first container 30 being sloped (fig. 6).
Regarding claim 8, Ramsay further discloses the first container further comprising one or more holders (recess formed between the vertical ribs on the walls) on the one or more first walls of the first container and ribs 64 on the first base of the first container (figs. 5-6).
Regarding claim 21, Ramsay further discloses:
the one or more first walls comprise a first-first wall and a second-first wall opposite the first-first wall; the one or more second walls comprise a first-second wall and a second-second wall opposite the first-second wall;
placing the inverted first container 30 on the second container 30 comprising placing the inverted first container 30 on the second container 30 at an angle such that the top surface of the first-first wall contacts the top surface of the first-second wall while the second-first wall and the second- second wall do not contact the second container or inverted first container respectively; and
interlocking the inverted first container 30 with the second container 30 comprising: sliding the top surface of the first-first wall along the top surface of the first- second wall until a positive feature of the one or more first positive features disposed on the top surface of the first-first wall partially engages with a negative feature of the one or more second negative features disposed on the top surface of the first-second wall, and with the positive feature of the one or more first positive features disposed on the top surface of the first-first wall partially engaged with the negative feature of the one or more second negative features disposed on the top surface of the first-second wall lowering the angle of the first inverted container until the top surface of the second-first wall contacts the top surface of the second-second wall, and engaging a negative feature of the one or more first negative features disposed on the second-first wall with a positive feature of the one or more second positive features disposed on the second-second wall (fig. 6).
Regarding claim 22, Ramsay further discloses sliding the top surface of the first-first wall along the top surface of the first-second wall comprising sliding the positive feature of the one or more first positive features 38 disposed on the top surface of the first-first wall along an inner surface of the first-second wall (fig. 6).
Regarding claim 24, Ramsay further discloses the mechanism 38, 50 comprising one or more positive features 38 disposed on a top surface of the one or more walls, and
one or more negative features 50 comprising cavities.
However, Ramsay fails to disclose the one or more first positive features 38 being flush with an inner edge of the top surface of the one or more walls, and the cavities being disposed on the inner edge of the top surface of the one or more walls.
Arnolds teaches two containers 5 and 6 being engaged by a positive feature 10 flush with an inner edge of a top surface of a wall, and corresponding cavities disposed on an inner edge of the wall (fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to substitute a positive feature flush with an inner edge of the wall of the container and a corresponding cavity as, for example, taught by the Arnolds reference for the mechanism of Ramsay, since it has been held that when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 50-51, 148 USPQ 479, 483 (1966)). It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnolds (US 3,565,146) in view of Esser (US 2019/0301794).
Regarding claim 6, Arnolds further discloses placing one or more articles in the second container 5 prior to placing the inverted first container on the second container (col. 1, lines 1-8) but fails to disclose placing the inverted first container 6 and the second container 5 on a conveyer system subsequent to interlocking the inverted first container with the second container.
However, Esser teaches placing a container and a lid on a conveyer system subsequent to interlocking the container and the lid (figs. 7-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have placed the locked container of Arnolds on a conveyer system, to develop a transport method which ensures every product shipment is deliver within a selected period and proper receipt of the shipment is confirmed as taught by Esser in paragraph 0011.
Claims 18-20 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramsay (US 5,042,674) in view of Esser (US 2019/0301794).
Regarding claims 18 and 20, Ramsay (fig. 6) discloses a system comprising:
a first container 30 comprising;
a base;
one or more walls extending from the base to form an interior space of the container 30 for receiving articles capable of being scanned by a scanner;
a container identification holder (recess formed between the vertical ribs on the walls) comprising a recessed space in a first wall of the one or more walls, wherein the container identification holder is dimensioned to receive and secure an identification object (dimensioned to be received and secured in the container identification holder) that identifies the first container to the scanner;
a first mechanism 38, 50 to connect the first container 30 to a second container 30;
and
the second container 30 comprising a second mechanism 38, 50 to connect the second container 30 to the second first container 30.
Ramsay fails to disclose a scanner.
However, Esser teaches a container on a conveyer going through a scanner (fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have put the container of Ramsay on a conveyer and make its go through a scanner, to ensure that every product shipment is delivered within the selected period and proper receipt of the shipment is confirmed by a recipient, as taught by Esser in paragraph 0011.
Regarding claim 19, the modified Ramsay further discloses the first container 30 being inverted and placed over the second container 30, and wherein the first mechanism 38, 50 and the second mechanism 38, 50 prevent displacement of the first container off the second container as the first container and the second container transit the scanner (fig. 6 of Ramsay and fig. 8 of Esser).
Regarding claim 26, Ramsay further discloses a respective positive feature 38 comprises a rectangular protrusion with a flat rectangular top and sloped sides; and
a respective negative features 50 comprises a rectangular cavity with sloped sides corresponding with the sloped sides of the respective positive feature (fig.6).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramsay (US 5,042,674) in view of Esser (US 2019/0301794) as applied to claim 18 above, further in view of in view of Arnolds (US 3,565,146).
Regarding claim 25, Ramsay further discloses:
the mechanism 38, 50 of the first container 30 comprising one or more first positive features 38 disposed on a top surface of the one or more walls, and
one or more first negative features 50 comprising cavities;
the second container 30 further comprising a second base, and one or more second walls extending from the second base to form an interior space of the second container for receiving articles to be scanned by the scanner; and
the second mechanism 38, 30 comprising one or more second positive features 38 disposed on a top surface of the one or more second walls, and
one or more second negative features 50 comprising cavities.
However, the modified Ramsay fails to disclose the one or more first positive features 38 being flush with an inner edge of the top surface of the one or more walls, and the cavities being disposed on the inner edge of the top surface of the one or more walls.
Arnolds teaches two containers 5 and 6 being engaged by a positive feature 10 flush with an inner edge of a top surface of a wall, and corresponding cavities disposed on an inner edge of the wall (fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to substitute a positive feature flush with an inner edge of the wall of the container and a corresponding cavity as, for example, taught by the Arnolds reference for the mechanism of the modified Ramsay, since it has been held that when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 50-51, 148 USPQ 479, 483 (1966)). It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Ramsay’s container is a generic moving and storage container which is not adapted for use with a security scanner. However, it is noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Conclusion
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 BLAINE GIRMA NEWAY whose telephone number is (571)270-5275. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM- 5:00PM.
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.
/BLAINE G NEWAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/Anthony D Stashick/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights