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 .
The amendments filed 9/1/2025 have been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 10,246,116 (Oltman et al. hereinafter) in view of US Patent No. 10,029,718 (Benning et al. hereinafter) and US Patent No. 3,698,733 (Isaacs hereinafter).
In re claim 1, with reference to Figs. 1 and 5A, Oltman et al. discloses: A portable storage system comprising: a stackable container (100) having an optional lid (123, removable and therefore “optional” to a user, column 4, lines 3-9), a bottom surface (138), four side walls, and four corners; and a slot strip (108) attached to a corner of the stackable container, wherein the slot strip has a plurality of slots.
[AltContent: textbox (Bent Edges)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Slots)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Corners)][AltContent: textbox (Walls)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Walls)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
514
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Oltman et al. fails to disclose wherein each wall is a plate extending in a first direction from the lid to the bottom surface and in a second direction, which is perpendicular to the first direction, extending from one corner to another corner and wherein the walls enclose a volume.
However, with reference to Fig. 17 below, Benning et al. discloses a storage cart wherein each wall (44, 52b, 62b, and 72) is a plate extending in a first direction from a lid (42b) to a bottom surface (108b) and in a second direction, which is perpendicular to the first direction, extending from one corner (74) to another corner and wherein the walls enclose a volume.
PNG
media_image2.png
722
524
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the cart of Oltman et al. to have extended the walls to between the lid and bottom and corners to removably enclose the storage volume of the cart as taught by Benning et al. for the predictable purposes of hiding contents from view to prevent theft, protecting contents from the elements and other environmental factions (dust, moisture, etc), as it is common in the art to provide removable walls to otherwise exposed storage systems.
Oltman et al. in view of Benning et al. fail to disclose wherein the stackable containers are automatically aligned and automatically locked together when a stackable container is stacked on another stackable container.
However, Isaacs discloses wheeled stackable containers (10) wherein the stackable containers are automatically aligned and automatically locked together when a stackable container is stacked on another stackable container (due to corner joints at 52/54, column 4, lines 29-47).
PNG
media_image3.png
445
489
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the container of Oltman et al. in view of Benning et al. to have included structure to facilitate automatic alignment and locking during stacking in order to ensure stable storage of the containers in a stacked configuration to minimize require floor space during storage/transportation (Isaacs, column 1, lines 46-50).
In re claim 2, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Oltman et al. in view of Benning et al. and Isaacs discloses the claimed invention including wherein corner walls having a non- zero angle with respect to the walls of the stackable container (see Fig. 1 above).
In re claim 3, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Oltman et al. in view of Benning et al. and Isaacs discloses the claimed invention including wherein the slot strip has edges that are bent at an angle (See Fig. 1 above).
In re claim 4, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Oltman et al. in view of Benning et al. and Isaacs discloses the claimed invention including wherein multiple stackable containers, when stacked together form a vertically aligned column of slots longer than a length of the slot strip on a single stackable container (Note that any two of a plurality of identical containers of Oltman et al. could align as claimed).
In re claim 5, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Oltman et al. in view of Benning et al. and Isaacs discloses the claimed invention including wherein the plurality of slots are useable to receive attachment hooks (note that if hooks were provided, the slots of Oltman et al. are capable of being intended to receive hooks, however the hooks are not positively recited as being part of the claimed container).
In re claim 6, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Oltman et al. in view of Benning et al. and Isaacs discloses the claimed invention including wherein the slot strip structurally reinforces the stackable container (i.e. without legs 108, the upper container portion would collapse, column 2, lines 52-56: “legs 108 supporting the rim 104”).
In re claim 7, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Oltman et al. in view of Benning et al. and Isaacs discloses the claimed invention including wherein a gap is created between the slot strip and the corner wall to receive attachment hooks (note that the bottom of the strip 108 is not flush with the corner and forms a gap, and the gap could receive a properly shaped hook, while the hook is not positively recited in the claim).
In re claim 8, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Oltman et al. in view of Benning et al. and Isaacs discloses the claimed invention including wherein the slot strip is made from one of metal, high-strength plastic, high-strength nylon, and metal alloy (column 6, lines 51-54).
In re claim 9, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Oltman et al. in view of Benning et al. and Isaacs discloses A slot strip (108) comprising: a panel with perforations attachable to corners of a stackable container (as in re claim 1 above); and two bent edges attachable to different walls of the stackable container (as in re claim 3 above, see Fig. 1 above), wherein each wall of the stackable container is a plate that in one direction extends an entire height of each side of the container and from another direction extends from one corner to another corner of the same side of the container, and wherein the walls enclose a volume, and wherein the stackable containers are automatically aligned and locked together when a stackable container is placed upon another stackable container (as in re claim 1 above).
In re claim 10, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Oltman et al. in view of Benning et al. and Isaacs discloses the claimed invention including wherein the stackable container is lockable to other stackable containers to create a stack of multiple stackable containers (note that a separate cable type bicycle lock could be used to pass through the slots of stacked containers). Further note this limitation is not a limitation of the invention drawn to the slot strip in claim 9.
In re claim 11, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Oltman et al. in view of Benning et al. and Isaacs discloses the claimed invention including wherein perforations are useable to receive attachment hooks (as in re claim 5 above).
In re claim 12, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Oltman et al. in view of Benning et al. and Isaacs discloses the claimed invention including wherein the slot strip structurally reinforces the stackable container (as in re claim 6 above).
In re claim 13, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Oltman et al. in view of Benning et al. and Isaacs discloses the claimed invention including wherein the corners of the stackable container form a corner wall (see fig. 1 above). Further note this limitation is not a limitation of the invention drawn to the slot strip in claim 9.
In re claim 14, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Oltman et al. in view of Benning et al. and Isaacs discloses the claimed invention including wherein the stock strip is made from one of metal, high- strength plastic, high-strength nylon, and metal alloy (as in re claim 8 above).
In re claim 15, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Oltman et al. in view of Benning et al. and Isaacs discloses A stackable container comprising: a front and back wall and two side walls; a corner wall between each two adjacent walls; and a slot strip attached to the corner wall, and wherein each wall is a plate that extends an entire height of each side of the container and further extends from one corner to another corner of the container, and wherein the walls and the corner walls enclose a volume, and wherein stackable containers automatically align and lock together when a stackable container is placed upon another stackable container (as in re claim 1 above).
In re claim 16, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Oltman et al. in view of Benning et al. and Isaacs discloses the claimed invention including wherein an attachment bar (104) attached across two adjacent slot strips (see figs. 1 and 5A).
PNG
media_image4.png
382
429
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In re claim 17, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Oltman et al. in view of Benning et al. and Isaacs discloses the claimed invention including wherein the attachment bar comprises a magnetic bar (when the container is formed of metal, such as a well known and commonly used metal for storage carts such as stainless steel cited in column 6, lines 51-54, the bar would be magnetic/able to receive magnets).
In re claim 18, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Oltman et al. in view of Benning et al. and Isaacs discloses the claimed invention including wherein the attachment bar comprises a molle panel (the slots 116 of bar 104 are interpreted as meeting the implied structural limitations for being a mole panel as interpreted by Applicant’s specification at pages 38-39).
In re claim 20, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Oltman et al. in view of Benning et al. and Isaacs discloses the claimed invention including wherein the slot strip structurally reinforces the stackable container (as in re claim 6 above).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oltman et al. in view of Benning et al. and Isaacs as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 5,438,938 (Meeker et al. hereinafter).
In re claim 19, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Oltman et al. in view of Benning et al. and Isaacs discloses the claimed invention except wherein the attachment bar includes two latches to lock the attachment bar to the two adjacent slot strips.
However, Meeker et al. discloses an attachment bar (32) extending between corner strips (14), wherein the bar includes two latches (44, 46) to lock the attachment bar to the two adjacent slot strips (see fig. 1).
PNG
media_image5.png
709
511
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified Oltman et al. in view of Benning et al. and Isaacs to have included a removable top wall/tray via attached latches as taught by Meeker et al. for the purposes of rending the upper container portion removable as usable as a separate tray (column 5, lines 28-40).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/24/2025 with respect to the pending claim(s) 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
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 ANDREW T KIRSCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5723. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9a-5p 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 Jenness can be reached at 571-270-5055. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDREW T KIRSCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733