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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 8-14, 20, 21, 25, 26, 29, 31-35, 37-39 are pending.
Claims 1-7, 15-19,22-24, 27, 28, 27, 28, 30, and 36 are canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 8-11 is /are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheng (US 5064068) in view of Smyer ( US 20060231555), Sun (US 4789075) and Von (US 1138814).
Regarding claim 8, Sheng discloses, A collapsible container (Fig. 1-8) comprising: a base (See annotated fig. below) having side flanges (See annotated fig. below);a pair of opposed side walls (See annotated fig. below) pivotably connected to the base (Fig. 8; sidewalls are pivoting into the container), the pair of side walls pivotable between an upright position (Fig. 3) and a collapsed position (Fig. 4) on the base, wherein the pair of side walls in the upright position define a container interior (See annotated fig. below);an upper frame (See annotated fig. below) pivotably connected to upper ends of the pair of side walls, the upper frame defining an upper opening into the container interior.
PNG
media_image1.png
424
724
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Sheng does not appear to disclose, a base having upstanding side flanges, a pair of opposed side walls pivotably connected to the upstanding side flanges.
Smyers discloses a collapsible box comprising a base having upstanding side flanges a pair of opposed side walls pivotably connected to the upstanding side flanges (Fig, 1; 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sheng to have the location of the hinge to be on the upstanding side flanges as taught by Smyers to achieve a different configuration of folding. Having such modification would still allow the prior art of Sheng to function as intended.
Additionally, it is noted that the applicant does not disclose any criticality of having the location of the hinge on the upstanding flange and this is simply a rearrangement of parts. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
However, Sheng does not explicitly disclose, a lid pivotably connected to the upper frame, the lid selectively closing the upper opening into the container interior.
Sun is in the field of endeavor and discloses, a collapsible container comprising a lid (5) pivotably connected to the upper most body to close the opening of the interior.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sheng to incorporate a lid pivotably connected to the upper most body/ the upper frame as taught by Sun for the purpose of allowing the user to prevent any unauthorized access to the interior while also keeping the product clean from outside.
Sheng does not appear to disclose, one of the pair of side walls is positioned on the other of the pair of side walls in the collapsed position on the base.
Von discloses a collapsible container comprising a pair of opposite sidewalls (See annotated fig. below) wherein one of the pair of side walls is positioned on the other of the pair of side walls in the collapsed position on the base (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sheng to incorporate one of the pair of side walls is positioned on the other of the pair of side walls in the collapsed position on the base as it would provide more stability and strength as it distribute the load evenly while also allowing for compart folding as the hinges are overlapping.
Regarding claim 9, Sheng discloses, each of the pair of side walls includes an upper panel (See annotated fig. below) and a lower panel (See annotated fig. below) connected by a hinge (See annotated fig. below).
PNG
media_image2.png
421
663
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Sheng discloses, the hinges only permit the upper panels and lower panels to pivot inward, not outward, of the collapsible container (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 11, Sheng discloses, a pair of opposed end walls (30, 32) pivotably connected to the upper frame.
Claim(s) 8-13, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thrush (US 20070084864) in view of Smyer ( US 20060231555), Sun (US 4789075) and Von (US 1138814).
Regarding claim 8, Thrush discloses, A collapsible container (Fig. 1- 5) comprising : a base (See annotated fig. below); a pair of opposed side walls (110, 130) pivotably connected to the base, the pair of side walls pivotable between an upright position (Fig. 1) and a collapsed position (Fig. 2-3) on the base, wherein the pair of side walls in the upright position define a container interior (Fig. 1) , an upper frame pivotably connected to upper ends of the pair of side walls (See hinges as annotated), the upper frame defining an upper opening (See annotated fig. below) into the container interior.
PNG
media_image3.png
310
601
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, Thrush does not appear to disclose, a base having upstanding side flanges, a pair of opposed side walls pivotably connected to the upstanding side flanges.
Smyers discloses a collapsible box comprising a base having upstanding side flanges a pair of opposed side walls pivotably connected to the upstanding side flanges (Fig, 1; 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Thrush to have the location of the hinge to be on the upstanding side flanges as taught by Smyers to achieve a different configuration of folding. Having such modification would still allow the prior art of Thrush to function as intended.
Additionally, it is noted that the applicant does not disclose any criticality of having the location of the hinge on the upstanding flange and this is simply a rearrangement of parts. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
However, Thrush does not explicitly disclose, a lid pivotably connected to the upper frame, the lid selectively closing the upper opening into the container interior.
Sun is in the field of endeavor and discloses, a collapsible container comprising a lid (5) pivotably connected to the upper most body to close the opening of the interior.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Thrush to incorporate a lid pivotably connected to the upper most body/ the upper frame as taught by Sun for the purpose of allowing the user to prevent any unauthorized access to the interior while also keeping the product clean from outside.
Thrush does not appear to disclose, one of the pair of side walls is positioned on the other of the pair of side walls in the collapsed position on the base.
Von discloses a collapsible container comprising a pair of opposite sidewalls (See annotated fig. below) wherein one of the pair of side walls is positioned on the other of the pair of side walls in the collapsed position on the base (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Thrush to incorporate one of the pair of side walls is positioned on the other of the pair of side walls in the collapsed position on the base as it would provide more stability and strength as it distribute the load evenly while also allowing for compart folding as the hinges are overlapping.
PNG
media_image4.png
880
821
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Thrush discloses each of the pair of side walls includes an upper panel (110A, 130A) and a lower panel (110B, 130B) connected by a hinge (110C, 30C).
Regarding claim 10, Thrush discloses the hinges (110C, 130C)only permit the upper panels and lower panels to pivot inward, not outward, of the collapsible container (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Thrush discloses a pair of opposed end walls (120 ,140) pivotably connected to the upper frame.
Regarding claim 12, Thrush discloses, each of the pair of opposed end walls includes a handle opening (120H, 140H) at an upper end thereof.
Regarding claim 13, Thrush as modified does not explicitly disclose, interlocking projections project upward from the upper frame and wherein the base includes complementary recesses aligned to receive the interlocking projections of an identical container stacked therebelow.
Smyers discloses a collapsible container comprising interlocking projections project upward (19) from the upper most body frame and wherein the base includes complementary recesses (66) aligned to receive the interlocking projections of an identical container stacked therebelow (para 46; fig. 9-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Thrush to incorporate interlocking projections project upward from the upper frame and wherein the base includes complementary recesses aligned to receive the interlocking projections of an identical container stacked as taught by Smyers for the purpose of providing additional stability when stacking identical containers one on top of another.
Regarding claim 31, Thrush discloses the end walls each include a frame defining an outer perimeter of the respective end wall, a large opening (Fig. 4, 5 opening closed by 120B) defined within the frame of each end wall.
PNG
media_image4.png
880
821
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thrush-Smyer-Sun-Von as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Lee (US 20040226944).
Regarding claim 20, Thrush does not disclose, a plurality of containers of liquid received therein; Lee discloses a collapsible container that is utilized for a plurality of containers of liquid received therein (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Thrush to use it for a plurality of containers of liquid received therein taught by Lee as it is well known in the art and saves space for transportation of such product.
Claim(s) 21, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thrush (US 20070084864) in view of Smyer (US 20060231555 ), Yabuta (JP 2014091552) and Lee (US 20040226944)
Regarding claim 21, Thrush discloses, A collapsible container (Fig. 1- 5) comprising : a base (See annotated fig. below), a pair of opposed side walls (110, 130) pivotably connected to the base, the pair of side walls pivotable between an upright position (Fig. 1) and a collapsed position (Fig. 2-3) on the base, wherein the pair of side walls in the upright position define a container interior (Fig. 1) , wherein each of the pair of side walls includes an upper panel and a lower panel connected by at least one a hinge (110C, 130C), the hinges only permit the upper panels and lower panels to pivot inward (Fig. 2), not outward, of the collapsible container, an upper frame pivotably connected to upper ends of the pair of side walls (See hinges as annotated), the upper frame defining an upper opening (See annotated fig. below) into the container interior, a pair of opposed end walls (120, 140) pivotably connected at upper ends thereof to the upper frame, the end wall include a frame (120A) defining an outer perimeter of the respective end wall, a large opening (Fig. 4, 5 opening closed by 120B) defined within the frame of end wall, each of the pair of opposed end walls includes a handle (120H, 140H) opening at an upper end thereof.
PNG
media_image3.png
310
601
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, Thrush does not appear to disclose the end wall each include a frame defining an outer perimeter of the respective end wall, a large opening defined within the frame of each end wall. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Thrush to have the end wall each include a frame defining an outer perimeter of the respective end wall, a large opening defined within the frame of each end wall since such a modification would amount to a mere duplication of parts. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI-B)
However, Thrush does not appear to disclose, a base having upstanding side flanges, a pair of opposed side walls pivotably connected to the upstanding side flanges.
Smyers discloses a collapsible box comprising a base having upstanding side flanges a pair of opposed side walls pivotably connected to the upstanding side flanges (Fig, 1; 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Thrush to have the location of the hinge to be on the upstanding side flanges as taught by Smyers to achieve a different configuration of folding. Having such modification would still allow the prior art of Thrush to function as intended.
Additionally, it is noted that the applicant does not disclose any criticality of having the location of the hinge on the upstanding flange and this is simply a rearrangement of parts. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
However, Thrush does not disclose a lid pivotably connected to the upper frame by lid hinges projecting upward of the upper frame, wherein the lid hinges are configured to be received in recesses in a base of an identical container stacked thereon, the lid selectively closing the upper opening into the container interior.
YABUTA is in the field of endeavor and discloses, a lid (34) pivotably connected to the upper frame by lid hinges projecting upward (23; Fig. 2) of the upper frame, the lid selectively closing the upper opening into the container interior.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Thrush to incorporate a lid pivotably connected to the upper frame by lid hinges projecting upward of the upper frame, the lid selectively closing the upper opening into the container interior as taught by YABUTA for the purpose of closing and keeping the content safe within the interior of the container.
The limitation “the lid hinges are configured to be received in recesses in a base of an identical container stacked thereon” is considered to be intended use. Examiner asserts that the recitation of intended use or purpose 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 or fulfilling said purpose, then it meets the claim. Herein, the hinges are capable of being received in a recessed when stacked.
Thrush does not disclose, a plurality of containers of liquid received in the collapsible container ; wherein each of the plurality of containers of liquid are directly supported on the base . Lee discloses a collapsible container that is utilized for a plurality of containers of liquid received therein (Fig. 2) wherein each of the plurality of containers of liquid are directly supported on the base.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Thrush to use it for a plurality of containers of liquid received in the collapsible container, wherein each of the plurality of containers of liquid are directly supported on the base as taught by Lee as it is well known in the art and saves space for transportation of such product.
Thrush as modified appear to discloses a plurality of containers of liquid extend upward above the handle openings of the pair of opposed end walls (Lee; fig. 2). However, in the event, this is not disclosed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Thrush to have plurality of containers of liquid extend upward above the handle openings of the pair of opposed end walls motivated by an obvious change in size, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 25, Thrush as modified does not explicitly disclose, interlocking projections project upward from the upper frame and wherein the base includes complementary recesses aligned to receive the interlocking projections of an identical container stacked therebelow.
Smyers discloses a collapsible container comprising interlocking projections project upward (19) from the upper most body frame and wherein the base includes complementary recesses (66) aligned to receive the interlocking projections of an identical container stacked therebelow (para 46; fig. 9-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Thrush to incorporate interlocking projections project upward from the upper frame and wherein the base includes complementary recesses aligned to receive the interlocking projections of an identical container stacked as taught by Smyers for the purpose of providing additional stability when stacking identical containers one on top of another.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thrush-Smyer-Yabuta-Lee as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Von (US 1138814).
Thrush does not appear to disclose, the pair of opposite side walls are configured such that one of the pair of opposed side walls is stacked on the other of the pair of opposed side walls when the pair of opposed side walls are in the collapsed position on the base.
Von discloses a collapsible container comprising pair of opposite side walls are configured such that one of the pair of opposed side walls (See annotated fig. below) is stacked on the other of the pair of opposed side walls when the pair of opposed side walls are in the collapsed position on the base (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Thrush to incorporate pair of opposite side walls are configured such that one of the pair of opposed side walls is stacked on the other of the pair of opposed side walls when the pair of opposed side walls are in the collapsed position on the base as it would provide more stability and strength as it distribute the load evenly while also allowing for compart folding as the hinges are overlapping.
PNG
media_image4.png
880
821
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thrush-Smyer-Sun-Von as applied to claim 13 in view of Gora (US 4892221).
Regarding claim 32, Thrush as modified does not disclose lid hinges to be projections, Gora discloses lid hinges to be projections (16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Thrush to incorporate lid hinges that are projections, as taught by Gora for the purpose of improving stability when stacking.
As a result of the modification, Thrush would have lid that is pivotably connected to the upper frame by lid hinges that form two of the interlocking projections.
Claim(s) 14, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thrush-Smyer-Sun-Von, and Thrush-Smyer-Yabuta-Lee as applied to claim 8 , and 21 respectively, and further in view Apps (US 20090151226).
Regarding claim 14, and 26 Sheng does not explicitly disclose, the lid includes a pair of latch members projecting away from one another toward ends of the upper frame
Apps discloses a collapsible container comprising a lid (24) wherein the lid (30) includes a pair of latch members (See annotated fig. below)) projecting away from one another toward ends of the upper most body/ upper frame.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sheng to incorporate lid including a pair of latch members projecting away from one another toward ends of the upper frame as taught by Apps for the purpose of preventing the lid from falling to low within the cavity when closing.
PNG
media_image5.png
421
539
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 33, 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thrush (US 20070084864) in view of Smyer( US 20060231555), Kreeger (US 4508237) and Sun (US 4789075).
Regarding claim 33, Thrush discloses, A collapsible container (Fig. 1- 5) comprising : a base (See annotated fig. below)having upstanding side flanges (See annotated fig. below); a pair of opposed side walls (110, 130) pivotably connected to the side flanges, the pair of side walls pivotable between an upright position (Fig. 1) and a collapsed position (Fig. 2-3) on the base, wherein the pair of side walls in the upright position define a container interior (Fig. 1) , wherein each of the pair of side walls includes an upper panel and a lower panel connected by at least one a hinge (110C, 130C), an upper frame pivotably connected to upper ends of the pair of side walls (See hinges as annotated), the upper frame defining an upper opening (See annotated fig. below) into the container interior, a pair of opposed end walls (120, 140) pivotably connected at upper ends thereof to the upper frame.
PNG
media_image3.png
310
601
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, Thrush does not appear to disclose, a base having upstanding side flanges, a pair of opposed side walls pivotably connected to the upstanding side flanges.
Smyers discloses a collapsible box comprising a base having upstanding side flanges a pair of opposed side walls pivotably connected to the upstanding side flanges (Fig, 1; 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Thrush to have the location of the hinge to be on the upstanding side flanges as taught by Smyers to achieve a different configuration of folding. Having such modification would still allow the prior art of Thrush to function as intended.
Additionally, it is noted that the applicant does not disclose any criticality of having the location of the hinge on the upstanding flange and this is simply a rearrangement of parts. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
However, Thrush does not disclose, a plurality of stops projecting inward from the pair of opposed side walls, wherein the pair of opposed end walls abut the plurality of stops when the pair of opposed end walls are in the upright position.
Kreeger discloses, a collapsible container comprising a plurality of stops projecting (30) inward from the pair of opposed side walls (12), wherein the pair of opposed end walls (14) abut the plurality of stops when the pair of opposed end walls are in the upright position (Fig. 1; Col. 3; lines 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Thrush to incorporate a plurality of stops projecting inward from the pair of opposed side walls, wherein the pair of opposed end walls abut the plurality of stops when the pair of opposed end walls are in the upright position as taught by Kreeger for the purpose of preventing the end walls going outside of the designed perimeter while also keeping the container securely erected.
However, Thrush does not disclose, a lid pivotably connected to the upper frame, the lid selectively closing the upper opening into the container interior.
Sun is in the field of endeavor and discloses, a collapsible container comprising a lid (5) pivotably connected to the upper most body to close the opening of the interior.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Thrush to incorporate a lid pivotably connected to the upper most body/ the upper frame as taught by Sun for the purpose of allowing the user to prevent any unauthorized access to the interior while also keeping the product clean from outside.
Regarding claim 34, Thrush discloses each of the pair of opposed end walls include a frame defining an outer perimeter of the respective end wall, a large opening (Fig. 4, 5 opening closed by 120B) defined within the frame of each end wall.
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thrush-Smyer-Kreeger-Sun as applied to claim 33 above, and further in view of Lee (US 20040226944).
Regarding claim 35, Thrush does not explicitly disclose a plurality of bottles received therein, wherein each of the plurality of containers of liquid are directly supported on the base .
Lee discloses a collapsible container that is utilized for a plurality of containers/bottles of liquid received therein (Fig. 2), wherein each of the plurality of containers of liquid are directly supported on the base .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Thrush to use it for a plurality of containers/bottles received therein, wherein each of the plurality of containers of liquid are directly supported on the base taught by Lee as it is well known in the art and saves space for transportation of such product while providing a sturdy and compact shape (Lee; abstract)
Thrush as modified does not appear to disclose, a plurality of containers of liquid extend upward higher than upper ends of the pair of opposed side walls, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Thrush to have plurality of containers of liquid extend upward higher than upper ends of the pair of opposed side walls motivated by an obvious change in size, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Claim(s) 37-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thrush-Smyer-Sun-Von as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Lee (US 20040226944).
Regarding claim 37, Thrush does not disclose, a plurality of containers of liquid received therein ; wherein each of the plurality of containers of liquid are directly supported on the base . Lee discloses a collapsible container that is utilized for a plurality of containers of liquid received therein (Fig. 2) wherein each of the plurality of containers of liquid are directly supported on the base.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Thrush to use it for a plurality of containers of liquid received in the collapsible container, wherein each of the plurality of containers of liquid are directly supported on the base as taught by Lee as it is well known in the art and saves space for transportation of such product.
Thrush does not disclose a plurality of containers of liquid extend upward higher that the handle openings at the upper end of each of the pair of opposed end walls. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Thrush to have a plurality of containers of liquid extend upward higher that the handle openings at the upper end of each of the pair of opposed end walls motivated by an obvious change in size, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 38, Thrush does not disclose interlocking projections project upward from the upper frame and wherein the base includes complementary recesses aligned to receive the interlocking projections of an identical container stacked therebelow.
Smyers discloses a collapsible container comprising interlocking projections project upward (19) from the upper most body frame and wherein the base includes complementary recesses (66) aligned to receive the interlocking projections of an identical container stacked therebelow (para 46; fig. 9-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Thrush to incorporate interlocking projections project upward from the upper frame and wherein the base includes complementary recesses aligned to receive the interlocking projections of an identical container stacked as taught by Smyers for the purpose of providing additional stability when stacking identical containers one on top of another.
As a result of such modification, Thrush as modified would have interlocking projections project upward from the upper frame since the upper frame is the most upper body and would come in contact with a bottom of another container when stacked.
Regarding claim 39, Thrush does not explicitly disclose, the lid includes a pair of latch members projecting away from one another toward ends of the upper frame
Apps discloses a collapsible container comprising a lid (24) wherein the lid (30) includes a pair of latch members (See annotated fig. below)) projecting away from one another toward ends of the upper most body/ upper frame.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Thrush to incorporate lid including a pair of latch members projecting away from one another toward ends of the upper frame as taught by Apps for the purpose of preventing the lid from falling to low within the cavity when closing.
PNG
media_image5.png
421
539
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Alternatively, Claim(s) 13, and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thrush-Smyer-Sun-Von and Thrush-Smyer-Sun-Von-Lee as applied to claim 12 and 37 respectively above, and further in view of Apps (US 7104414).
Regarding claim 13, and 38, Thrush as modified does not disclose, interlocking projections project upward from the upper frame and wherein the base includes complementary recesses aligned to receive the interlocking projections of an identical container stacked therebelow.
Apps discloses, interlocking projections (110) project upward from the upper frame (Fig. 1; 110 is on upper frame)and wherein the base includes complementary recesses (108) aligned to receive the interlocking projections of an identical container stacked therebelow (Col. 4; lines 45-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Thrush to incorporate , interlocking projections project upward from the upper frame and wherein the base includes complementary recesses aligned to receive the interlocking projections of an identical container stacked therebelow as taught by Apps for the purpose of providing additional stability when stacking identical containers one on top of another.
Alternatively, Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thrush (US 20070084864) in view of Smyer ( US 20060231555), Apps (US 20090151226) and Von (US 1138814).
Regarding claim 8, Thrush discloses, A collapsible container (Fig. 1- 5) comprising : a base (See annotated fig. below); a pair of opposed side walls (110, 130) pivotably connected to the base, the pair of side walls pivotable between an upright position (Fig. 1) and a collapsed position (Fig. 2-3) on the base, wherein the pair of side walls in the upright position define a container interior (Fig. 1) , an upper frame pivotably connected to upper ends of the pair of side walls (See hinges as annotated), the upper frame defining an upper opening (See annotated fig. below) into the container interior.
PNG
media_image3.png
310
601
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, Thrush does not appear to disclose, a base having upstanding side flanges, a pair of opposed side walls pivotably connected to the upstanding side flanges.
Smyers discloses a collapsible box comprising a base having upstanding side flanges a pair of opposed side walls pivotably connected to the upstanding side flanges (Fig, 1; 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Thrush to have the location of the hinge to be on the upstanding side flanges as taught by Smyers to achieve a different configuration of folding. Having such modification would still allow the prior art of Thrush to function as intended.
Additionally, it is noted that the applicant does not disclose any criticality of having the location of the hinge on the upstanding flange and this is simply a rearrangement of parts. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
However, Thrush does not explicitly disclose, a lid pivotably connected to the upper frame, the lid selectively closing the upper opening into the container interior.
Apps is in the field of endeavor and discloses, a collapsible container comprising a lid (5) pivotably connected to the upper frame (22) the lid selectively closing the upper opening into the container interior . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Thrush to incorporate a lid pivotably connected to the upper frame, the lid selectively closing the upper opening into the container interior as taught by Apps for the purpose of allowing the user to prevent any unauthorized access to the interior while also keeping the product clean from outside.
Thrush does not appear to disclose, one of the pair of side walls is positioned on the other of the pair of side walls in the collapsed position on the base.
Von discloses a collapsible container comprising a pair of opposite sidewalls (See annotated fig. below) wherein one of the pair of side walls is positioned on the other of the pair of side walls in the collapsed position on the base (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Thrush to incorporate one of the pair of side walls is positioned on the other of the pair of side walls in the collapsed position on the base as it would provide more stability and strength as it distribute the load evenly while also allowing for compart folding as the hinges are overlapping.
PNG
media_image4.png
880
821
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicants argument with regards to the pair of sidewalls being connected to the upstanding side flange is considered but moot as this is disclosed by prior art of Smyer as shown in the rejection above.
The applicant argues that the modification of Sheng would negatively impact the Sheng, to which the examiner replies that, our reviewing court has recognized that a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate any or all reasons to combine teachings. See Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n. 8 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one another.”). Having such modification as suggested does not destroy the invention but rather improve strength as mentioned above.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The applicant argues that the prior art of Lee does not disclose a lid pivotably attached to an upper frame to which the examiner replies that the prior art of Lee is utilized to show that it is known to have milk containers in collapsible containers.
The applicant additionally argues the access door of Thrush is not designed for retrieving milk jug , to that the examiner respectfully disagrees. The size of the product used is not currently claimed and it can be changed as needed. There can be small milk jug for use that can go in and out through the door, as such this argument is not found persuasive.
Additionally, the argument that no prior art discloses, a lid pivotably attached to an upper frame is also not persuasive since the prior art of Sun explicitly teaches to incorporate a lid to be pivotably attached to the upper most body in this case the upper frame. 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).
The applicant further argues that claim 21 requires the container to extend above the handle opening to which the examiner replies that, this limitation is concerned with size of the milk container and or the access door. This can be achieved by having large container that extends above the handle opening or by modifying the handle opening so its below the mouth of the milk container and is achievable by a simple change is size. The applicant does not specify why this limitation is critical to the invention. The access door of Thrush is provided to allow a user to access the content of the collapsible container and using such door to access milk jug does not go beyond the scope of the invention.
The applicant further argues that the prior art of Thrush is for small articles and not for milk jugs. Firstly, the applicant is reminded that the milk jugs 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). Secondly, The absence of a disclosure relating to the function does not defeat the finding of anticipation since it is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schneller, 44 USPQ 2d 1429 (Fed Cir. 1997); In re Spada, 15 USPQ 2d 1655 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Benner, 82 USPQ 49 (CCPA 1949).
Regarding claim 29, the applicant argues that since the container is not loaded when in collapsed position, it would not provide stability and strength to which the examiner replies that the motivation of incorporating is two part. First being allowing improved strength by overlapping the walls, if any weight is put in the collapsed position , the changes of breakage would be slim since both walls are sharing the weight. Secondly, this allows for compact folding as the hinges are overlapping.
The applicant further argues that the prior arts fail to disclose, projection that project upward from an upper frame to that the examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art of Smyer explicitly teaches the use of upward projection form the upper most area where a recess of a container from a bottom surface would engage. This is for improving stacking multiple container and in this case, the frame of Thrush as modified is the upper most area as such it would be placed on the upper frame.
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 SANJIDUL ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7670. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 -5:00.
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, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at 571-270-5531. 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.
/SANJIDUL ISLAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/CHUN HOI CHEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights