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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 October 10, 2025 has been entered.
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 1-20 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 recites the limitation “wherein the top of the sides of the bag are only connected to a top portion of the two or more rods”, claim 9 recites the limitation “wherein the top of the sides of the bag comprises two or more rings”, and claim 10 recites the limitation “the top of the sides of the bag comprise two or more strips of material attached at each end to the outside of the sides of bag”. Claim 1 also defines a height of the bag that spans from “a top of the sides to a bottom of the sides”, which indicates that the top of the sides would be the top edge of the sides. However, the specification only provides support for the two or more rods being connected to two or more rings 240 that are attached to the top of the bag (paragraph 39) and the two or more rods being connected to or along side edges of the sides of the bag (as shown in figures 2A-3, 4). Accordingly, the claim fails to comply with the written description requirement as the specification fails to provide support for the top edges of the sides being only connected to a top portion of the two or more rods, the top of the sides of the bag comprising two or more rings, and the top of the sides of the bag comprising two or more strips of material attached at each end to the outside of the sides of bag.
Claims 2-8 and 10-20 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-6, 9-11, 13, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong (CN 112478464 A) in view of Jacobson et al. (US 4,036,361 A) and Bothor (DE 20100219 U1).
Regarding claim 1, Dong teaches a bulk solids container comprising:
a bag (21) comprising a top and sides configured to house the bulk solid, wherein the sides of the bag have a height that spans from a top of the sides to a bottom of the sides (Fig. 1);
a rigid base (11, 16); and
two or more rods (12), wherein the two or more rods are removably attached to an outside of the sides of the bag and permanently or removably connected to the perimeter of the base, and
wherein the bag and the two or more rods are collapsible to fit on top of an upper surface of the base when the bag is empty (Fig. 9), and wherein the container is reusable (“when liquid bag is not filled with liquid, the vertical rod can be rotated to fall down”) (Translation and Fig. 1-9).
Dong fails to teach the bottom of the sides of the bag being connected entirely around a perimeter of the base. Jacobson teaches an analogous bulk solids container comprising a bag and a rigid base, and further teaches that it is known in the prior art to connect a bottom of the sides of the bag entirely around a perimeter of the base (column 6 line 43-column 10 line 49).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Dong by connecting the bottom of the sides of the bag entirely around a perimeter of the base, as taught by Jacobson, in order to prevent movement between the bag and the base.
Dong fails to teach the top of the sides of the bag being only connected to a top portion of the two or more rods. Bothor teaches an analogous bulk solids container comprising a bag (5) attached to a rigid base (1) and two or more rods (3) connected to a perimeter of the base. Bothor further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to connect the top of the sides of the bag to a top portion of the two or more rods via lifting loops or rings (4) in order to ensure the bag is properly and fully extended for filling and emptying (Translation and Fig. 1).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Dong by configuring the top of the sides of the bag to be connected to a top portion of the two or more rods, as taught by Bothor, in order to ensure the bag is properly and fully extended for filling and emptying.
Regarding claim 2, Dong as modified by Jacobson and Bothor teaches the container of claim 1 above, wherein the bag has a cross-sectional shape selected from square, rectangular, circular, oval or triangular (Dong: translation and Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Dong as modified by Jacobson and Bothor teaches the container of claim 1 above, wherein the bag is made from a flexible material selected from burlap, cotton, linen, canvas, linen, jute, hemp, flax, blends thereof, polyethylene or polypropylene (Dong: Translation- “woven cloth material”, by definition cloth is made from wool, cotton or other similar material).
Regarding claim 4, Dong as modified by Jacobson and Bothor teaches the container of claim 1 above, the bag further comprises an opening (23) located at the top of the bag, wherein the opening is configured to allow the container to be filled with the bulk solid (Dong: translation and Fig. 1-5).
Regarding claim 5, Dong as modified by Jacobson and Bothor teaches the container of claim 1 above, wherein the base is made from a material selected from the group consisting of metals, metal alloys, hard plastics, structurally reinforced hard plastics, wood, and combinations thereof (Dong: translation- “plastic plate”).
Regarding claim 6, Dong as modified by Jacobson and Bothor teaches the container of claim 1 above, wherein the base comprises an upper surface and sides that extend down from the upper surface (Dong: Fig. 1-3).
Regarding claim 9, Dong as modified by Jacobson and Bothor teaches the container of claim 1 above, wherein a top end of the two or more rods comprises a connector (Dong: protruding portion above supporting rod 14), wherein the top of the sides of the bag comprises two or more rings (Bothor: Fig. 1), and wherein the two or more rods are removably attached to the outside of the top of the sides of the bag via connecting the connector rings (Bothor: Translation and Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Dong as modified by Jacobson and Bothor teaches the container of claim 1 above, wherein the top of the sides of the bag comprise two or more strips of material attached at each end to the outside of the sides of bag with an opening located between the ends (Bother: Fig. 1), and wherein the two or more strips of material are configured to receive a top end of the two or more rods into the opening (Bother: Translation and Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Dong as modified by Jacobson and Bothor teaches the container of claim 1 above, wherein the outside of the sides of the bag comprise two or more hollow sleeves (25) that extend from an area adjacent to the bottom of the sides to an area adjacent to the top of the sides of the bag, wherein each of the two or more sleeves are configured to receive one of the two or more rods (Dong: translation and Fig. 1-3).
Regarding claim 13, Dong as modified by Jacobson and Bothor teaches the container of claim 1 above, wherein the base further comprises two more holes (15) located on top of the perimeter of the base, wherein the two or more rods comprise a protrusion extending from a bottom end of the rods, and wherein the two or more rods are removably connected to the base via insertion of the protrusions into the holes (Dong: Translation and Fig. 1-3, 8).
Regarding claim 17, Dong as modified by Jacobson and Bothor teaches the container of claim 1 above, but fails to teach the two or more rods have an adjustable length, wherein the two or more rods comprise a first telescoping portion and a second telescoping portion, and wherein the first and second telescoping portions are configured to move in vertical relation to each other to either decrease or increase the total length of the rods.
Jacobson teaches the analogous bulk solids container further comprising one or more rods connected to a perimeter of the base and further teaches an alternative known collapsible rod structure wherein the two or more rods have an adjustable length, wherein the two or more rods comprise a first telescoping portion and a second telescoping portion, and wherein the first and second telescoping portions are configured to move in vertical relation to each other to either decrease or increase the total length of the rods (column 4 line 62-column 5 line 3).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Dong by alternatively configuring the two or more rods to have an adjustable length, wherein the two or more rods comprise a first telescoping portion and a second telescoping portion, and wherein the first and second telescoping portions are configured to move in vertical relation to each other to either decrease or increase the total length of the rods, as taught by Jacobson, as the substitution of one known collapsible rod configuration for an alternative known collapsible rod configuration to achieve the equivalent result of providing two or more rods that can be collapsible to fit on top of the upper surface of the base when the bag is empty would have been obvious and would have yielded predictable results to one skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 19, Dong as modified by Jacobson and Bothor teaches the container of claim 1 above, wherein the container is configured such that it is capable of being stackable onto a second container when the container and the second container are empty and when the two or more rods of the bag of the container and the second container have been collapsed (Dong: Translation and Fig. 1-3, 9). It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations and while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114). In this case, the container disclosed by Dong has the structure necessary to function as claimed.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong in view of Jacobson and Bothor, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Sortwell (US 5,897,012 A).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Dong as modified by Jacobson and Bothor teaches the container of claim 6 above, but fails to teach the upper surface of the base comprising one or more sloped portions that slope from the sides of the base down toward a discharge opening and a discharge line extending from the discharge opening to an outside of the base. Sortwell teaches that it is known in the analogous art to provide a base with an upper surface comprising one or more sloped portions that slope from sides of the base down towards a discharge opening in an analogous container (Figs. 2 and 3) and further teaches the discharge opening (51) includes a discharge line (53) extending from the discharge opening (51) to an outside of the base (Figs. 1 and 2).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Dong by providing the upper surface of the base with one or more sloped portions that slope from the sides of the base down toward a discharge opening and by providing a discharge line extending from the discharge opening to an outside of the base, as taught by Sortwell, in order to effectively allow discharging solids from the filled container.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong in view of Jacobson and Bothor, as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Olson (US 5,722,552 A).
Regarding claim 14, Dong as modified by Jacobson and Bothor teaches the container of claim 13 above, but fails to teach the protrusions including female threads and the holes including corresponding male threads. Olson teaches an analogous bulk solids container comprising a bag, a rigid base, and two or more rods connected to a perimeter of the base, wherein the base further comprises two more holes located on top of the perimeter of the base, wherein the two or more rods comprise a protrusion extending from a bottom end of the rods, and wherein the two or more rods are removably connected to the base via insertion of the protrusions into the holes. Olson further teaches that it is known in the prior art to configure the protrusions with female threads and the holes with corresponding male threads in order to removably secure the two or more rods.
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Dong by alternatively configuring the protrusions with female threads and the holes with corresponding male threads, as taught by Olson, as the substitution of one known removable securing mechanism for an alternative known removable securing mechanism to achieve the equivalent result of removably securing the two or more rods would have been obvious and would have yielded predictable results to one skilled in the art.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong in view of Jacobson and Bothor, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sortwell.
Regarding claim 15, Dong as modified by Jacobson and Bothor teaches the container of claim 1 above, but fails to teach the two or more rods being permanently connected to the perimeter of the base, wherein a bottom end of the two or more rods comprises a locking hinge located adjacent to the perimeter of the base, and wherein the locking hinge is configured to allow the two or more rods to be collapsed to lie parallel to the upper surface of the base. Sortwell teaches an analogous bulk solids container comprising a bag, a rigid base, and two or more rods (30a-30d) connected to the perimeter of the base. Sortwell teaches an analogous and alternative collapsible rod configuration wherein the two or more rods are permanently connected to the perimeter of the base, wherein a bottom end of the two or more rods comprises a locking hinge (36) located adjacent to the perimeter of the base, and wherein the locking hinge is configured to allow the two or more rods to be collapsed to lie parallel (FIG. 6-10) to the upper surface of the base (column 2 line 66-column 4 line 6, column 6 lines 32-43, column 7 lines 23-62 and FIG. 1, 3, 6-10, 15, 16).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Dong by alternatively configuring the two or more rods to be permanently connected to the perimeter of the base, wherein a bottom end of the two or more rods comprises a locking hinge located adjacent to the perimeter of the base, and wherein the locking hinge is configured to allow the two or more rods to be collapsed to lie parallel to the upper surface of the base, as taught by Sortwell, as the substitution of one known collapsible rod configuration for an alternative known collapsible rod configuration to achieve the equivalent result of providing two or more rods that can be collapsible to fit on top of the upper surface of the base when the bag is empty would have been obvious and would have yielded predictable results to one skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 16, Dong as modified by Jacobson and Bothor teaches the container of claim 1 above, but fails to teach the two or more rods having a fixed length and comprising one or more locking hinges located along a length of the rods that allow the rods to be collapsed into shorter segments. Sortwell teaches an analogous bulk solids container comprising a bag, a rigid base, and two or more rods (30a-30d) connected to the perimeter of the base. Sortwell teaches an analogous and alternative collapsible rod configuration wherein the two or more rods having a fixed length and comprise one or more locking hinges (36) located along a length of the rods that allow the rods to be collapsed into shorter segments (column 2 line 66-column 4 line 6, column 6 lines 32-43, column 7 lines 23-62 and FIG. 1, 3, 6-10, 15, 16).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Dong by alternatively configuring the two or more rods to have a fixed length and to comprise one or more locking hinges located along a length of the rods that allow the rods to be collapsed into shorter segments, as taught by Sortwell, as the substitution of one known collapsible rod configuration for an alternative known collapsible rod configuration to achieve the equivalent result of providing two or more rods that can be collapsible to fit on top of the upper surface of the base when the bag is empty would have been obvious and would have yielded predictable results to one skilled in the art.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong in view of Jacobson and Bothor, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shirafuji (JP 2002-104062 A).
Regarding claim 18, Dong as modified by Jacobson and Bothor teaches the container of claim 1 above, but fails to teach the upper surface of the base comprises one or more aeration openings. Shirafuji teaches that it is known in the art to provide aeration openings in the upper surface of a base in an analogous container (Figs. 2 and 3).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Dong by additionally providing one or more aeration openings in the upper surface of the base, as taught by Shirafuji, in order to receive air from an air inlet and aerate the bulk solids during removal of the bulk solids from the bag.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong in view of Jacobson and Bothor, as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Hill (US 8,919,589 B2).
Regarding claim 20, Dong as modified by Jacobson and Bother teaches the container of claim 19 above, but fails to teach the container and the second container being securable to each other after stacking.
Hill teaches an analogous bulk solids container having a bag (40), a rigid base (22), and two or more rods (32) connected to a perimeter of the rigid base. Hill further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to provide the container with a structure (cleats 63 and cooperating opening in a bottom face of the base) configured to be securable with a second container after each container has been collapsed and stacked (column 7 lines 43-46).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Dong by providing the container with cleats and cooperating openings in a bottom face of the base, as taught by Hill, so that the container and the second container can be securably stacked.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims with the base claim (claim 1) additionally rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed October 10, 2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NINA KAY ATTEL whose telephone number is (571)270-3972. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-4PM 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 Newhouse can be reached at 571-272-4544. 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.
/NINA K ATTEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3734
/NATHAN J NEWHOUSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3734