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, 20-26, 28, 29, 31-35 are pending.
Claims 1-7, 15-19, 27, 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 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 upstanding side flanges (See annotated fig. below);a pair of opposed side walls (See annotated fig. below) pivotably connected to the side flanges (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 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 when the container is loaded as it distribute the load evenly while also allowing for compart folding as the hinges are overlapping.
PNG
media_image2.png
880
821
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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_image3.png
421
663
media_image3.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) 8-12, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thrush (US 20070084864) in view of 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)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) , 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_image4.png
345
601
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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 when the container is loaded as it distribute the load evenly while also allowing for compart folding as the hinges are overlapping.
PNG
media_image2.png
880
821
media_image2.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 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.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thrush-Sun-Von as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Lee (US 20040226944).
Regarding claim 20, Thrush appears to discloses a plurality of containers of liquid received therein (26).In the event 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) 21-23, 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thrush (US 20070084864) in view of Yabuta (JP 2014091552).
Regarding claim 21, 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_image4.png
345
601
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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.
Regarding claim 22, Thrush discloses, the hinges only permit the upper panels and lower panels to pivot inward (Fig. 2), not outward, of the collapsible container.
Regarding claim 23, Thrush discloses, each of the pair of opposed end walls includes a handle (120H, 140H) opening at an upper end thereof.
Regarding claim 28, Thrush discloses, the end walls each 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 each end wall.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thrush-Yabuta as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Lee (US 20040226944).
Regarding claim 24, Thrush appears to discloses a plurality of containers of liquid received therein (26).In the event 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) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thrush-Yabuta as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Von (US 1138814).
Thrush does not appear to disclose, 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 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 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 when the container is loaded as it distribute the load evenly while also allowing for compart folding as the hinges are overlapping.
PNG
media_image2.png
880
821
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 21 is /are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheng (US 5064068) in view of Sun (US 4789075) and Gora (US 4892221).
Regarding claim 21, Sheng discloses, A collapsible container (Fig. 1-8) comprising: a base (See annotated fig. below) having upstanding side flanges (See annotated fig. below);a pair of opposed side walls (See annotated fig. below) pivotably connected to the side flanges (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); wherein each of the pair of side walls includes an upper panel (See annotated fig. of claim 9) and a lower panel (See annotated fig. of claim 9) connected by at least one hinge (See annotated fig. of claim 9) 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; a pair of opposed end walls (30, 32) pivotably connected at upper ends thereof to the upper frame (Fig. 8)
PNG
media_image1.png
424
724
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
However, Thrush does not disclose 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; Gora discloses , a container having lid hinge (16) projecting upward (Fig. 1) for pivotably connecting lid to the 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 hinges projecting upward of the upper frame, as taught by Gora for the purpose of improving stability when stacking.
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.
Claim(s) 13, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheng-Sun-Von and Sheng-Sun-Gora as applied to claim 11 and 21 respectively, and further in view of Smyers (US 20060231555).
Regarding claim 13, and 25 Sheng 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 Sheng 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) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheng-Sun-Von as applied to claim 13 in view of Gora (US 4892221).
Regarding claim 32, Sheng 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, Sheng 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 Sheng-Sun-Von, and Sheng-Sun-Gora 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 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_image4.png
345
601
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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-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.
Lee discloses a collapsible container that is utilized for a plurality of containers/bottles 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/bottles received therein 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)
Response to Arguments
Firstly, it is noted that, the finality of the previous action is withdrawn to further clarify the position of the office. As this clarification may be perceived as a new ground of rejection, this action has been made NON-FINAL.
The applicant argues that the prior arts of record fails to provide motivation for modifying Sheng It has been held that the motivation to combine the references to arrive at the claimed invention may be found in the “nature of the problem to be solved” when each reference is directed "to precisely the same problem" Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 69 USPQ2d 1686 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The court also rejected the notion that “an express written motivation to combine must appear in prior art references….” Id. at 1276, 69 USPQ2d at 1690. Furthermore, The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006). This type of folding where one hinge rests on another allows for strong hinges while having a compact collapsible box since they are sharing space when collapsed.
The applicant argues that such modification would require a change in height and depth to which the examiner disagrees. The limitation recites "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" and this can be achieved by modifying the location of the hinge at which the sidewall collapses. The modification of height or the depth of the sidewall is not necessary for this limitation.
With regards to argument relating to prior arts fail to show sidewall pivotally connected to upstanding side flange of the base is not persuasive because both prior arts Sheng and Thrush discloses collapsible box wherein the box folds inwards and this is possible if the sidewalls are connected to the base flange by hinge or else the sidewalls would not collapse. The applicant argues that the final office action admits Thrush does not disclose this limitation but that's incorrect. The final office action states "Thrush does not explicitly disclose, a lid pivotably connected to the upper frame, the lid selectively closing the upper opening into the container interior." Pg. 7 for which Thrush was modified in view of prior art Sun. The applicant argues that the prior art of Sun does not disclose an upper frame , to which the examiner disagrees. The prior art of Sun discloses a lid that is attached to the upper part of the container to allow for the container to be closed and herein the upper part where the lid is connected to sidewall is considered upperframe. Incorporating lids into creates is well known and Sun explicitly teaches the use of lids when constructing crates. 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).A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, and in many cases will be able to fit teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.
The applicant additionally argues the prior art fails to disclose Lee discloses the use of Milk jug and can not be used with Thrush as they are larger in size, 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, as such this argument is not found persuasive.
The applicant further argues regarding the limitation of claim 21 stating "lid hinges are configured to be received in recess in a base of an identical continent stacked thereon" The prior art as mapped discloses all the structures as claimed and as such is expected to perform the same/capable of performing the limitation as claimed. The applicant does not point out exactly what positively claimed structure is missing from the prior art that prevents the prior art from being capable of performing the limitation.
Applicants argument with regards to claim 14, and 26 is found persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Apps (US 20090151226).
Conclusion
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
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736