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 7/13/2026 have 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. Claims 1 and 11 newly recite the limitation “wherein the corner wall is positioned at an angle that is more than 35 and less than 55 degrees with respect to each of its two adjacent walls. There is no support in the Application as originally filed for this specific range of angles newly recited by the claim. The range limitation is therefore considered new matter and cannot be considered on the merits.
Claim 5 newly recites the limitation “wherein the slot strip is attached to the additional corner wall”. However, there is no support for a single slot strip (that of claim 1) being attached simultaneously to two different corner walls (the corner wall of claim 1 and the additional corner wall of claim 5). This limitation is therefore new matter and cannot be considered on the merits.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 11 recite the limitations "each of its two adjacent walls". The corner walls having respective adjacent walls has not been established in the claim. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “at least one stackable container”, followed by references to “the stackable container” and “the stackable containers” and back to “the at least one stackable container” in the claim. It is not clear which of the potential plurality of stackable containers is being referenced to as “the stackable container”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the top and the bottom stackable containers”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the two stacked containers". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites two instances of “an upper stackable container". It is unclear whether the instances refer to the same upper stackable container or introduce a new and additional stackable container. The limitation will be interpreted as the former.
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) 1-13 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Craig (of record) in view of Freelander (of record), US Patent No. 3,276,832 (Reilly hereinafter), and US Patent No. 6,367,631 (Steigerwald hereinafter).
In re claim 1, with reference to Figs. 1-3, Craig discloses: A portable storage system comprising: at least one stackable container having an outwardly facing slot strip (74 faces outward, see Fig. 1 below) attached to a corner wall of the stackable container; and at least one accessory (31) having an attachment base (71) attachable to and detachable from the outwardly facing slot strip of the at least one stackable container.
[AltContent: textbox (Corner Wall)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Attachment Bar)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
643
486
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Craig fails to disclose wherein a lid to cover the at least one stackable container, wherein a convexity on the lid of the at least one stackable container and a concavity at a bottom of an upper stackable container cause self aligning of the two stacked stackable containers.
However, with reference to Fig. 3, Freelander discloses a portable storage system having a stackable container (12/24), wherein a convexity (18) on a lid (12) of the stackable container and a concavity (28, see Fig. 1) at a bottom (24) of an upper stackable container cause self aligning of the two stacked stackable containers (note some pre-aligning is required by a user during stacking of both the present invention and that of Freelander).
PNG
media_image2.png
296
403
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
777
389
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 storage system of Craig to have included a lid and container assembly to facilitate stacking of wheeled containers as taught by Freelander for the purposes of preventing the wheeled containers from rolling away while allowing for stacking to realize reduced floor space required for storage of multiple wheeled containers (Freelander, column 1, lines 27-48).
Craig in view of Freelander fails to disclose wherein the corner wall is positioned at an angle that is more than zero and less than ninety degrees with respect to each of its two adjacent walls.
However, with reference to Figs. 1-5 and 8, Reilly discloses a corner element wherein an angled corner wall has a slot strip (21) and is positioned at an angle that is more than zero and less than ninety degrees with respect to each of two adjacent walls (see figs. 8 below).
[AltContent: textbox (Adjacent Wall)][AltContent: textbox (Corner Wall)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Adjacent Wall)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image4.png
312
319
media_image4.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 corner wall of Craig in view of Freelander to have an angled portion positioned more than zero and less than 90 degrees relative to adjacent walls as taught by Reilly for the purposes of facilitation of attachment of accessories to the corner wall (such as the resilient corner cover 29 of Reilly). Further note that since at pages 35 and 37 of the Specification, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed angle, and in fact recites that “The angles 844 and 845 of the corner wall with respect to the front wall 842 and side wall 843, respectively, may be any angle”, and “while in other embodiments, front wall 842 and side wall 843 meet at a 90 degree angle without an intermediate corner wall 841 between them, creating a square corner”. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have formed the corner at a specific angle, since the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant (MPEP 2144.04, IV, B).
Craig in view of Freelander and Reilly fail to disclose a locking mechanism to automatically lock the top and the bottom stackable containers together, wherein a latch is manually manipulated to unlock the stackable containers.
However, with reference to Fig. 5, Steigerwald discloses an attachable locking mechanism for coupling stacked containers, wherein the mechanism (elements 6-12) is configured to automatically lock a top and a bottom stackable container together, wherein a latch (7) is manually manipulated to unlock the stackable containers.
PNG
media_image5.png
580
391
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 combined a locking mechanism as taught by Steigerwald with the stackable system of Craig in view of Freelander and Reilly for the purposes of facilitating secure stacking containers during storage or transport while allowing for deliberate unstacking by use of a latch to prevent inadvertent separation of the stacked assembly (see Steigerwald, columns 5-6, lines 39-14).
In re claim 2, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Craig in view of Freelander and Reilly discloses the claimed invention including wherein multiple slot strips (74) to allow attachment of an attachment bar (rear 31, see Fig. 1).
In re claim 3, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Craig in view of Freelander and Reilly and Steigerwald discloses the claimed invention including latches (71) on two ends of the attachment bar (rear 31).
In re claim 4, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Craig in view of Freelander and Reilly and Steigerwald discloses the claimed invention including wherein the at least one stackable container has an additional corner wall (of other 16) between two adjacent walls of the at least one stackable container (i.e. front and side surfaces of the element 16 of Craig).
In re claim 5, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Craig in view of Freelander and Reilly and Steigerwald discloses the claimed invention including wherein the slot strip (74) is attached to the corner wall (16).
In re claim 6, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Craig in view of Freelander and Reilly and Steigerwald discloses the claimed invention including wherein the slot strip has two bent edges, each bent edge attached to one of the two adjacent walls of the at least one stackable container (i.e. both bent edges of strip 74 appear attached to the wall of 16).
In re claim 7, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Craig in view of Freelander and Reilly and Steigerwald discloses the claimed invention including wherein a gap is created between the slot strip and the corner wall (center of slot strip 74 is raised relative to edges, see Fig. 1 above).
In re claim 8, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Craig in view of Freelander and Reilly and Steigerwald discloses the claimed invention including wherein the attachment base (71) has attachment hooks (72) to be inserted into the slot strip (74) using the gap between the slot strip and the corner wall (column 3, lines 42-45).
In re claim 9, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Craig in view of Freelander and Reilly and Steigerwald discloses the claimed invention including wherein the at least one accessory comprises one of a device holder (41), and a long-handle tool (42).
In re claim 10, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Craig in view of Freelander and Reilly and Steigerwald discloses the claimed invention including wherein another quick release accessory is coupled with the attachment bar, wherein the another quick release accessory comprises one of a tool holder, and a parts bin (i.e. holder/bin 41 can be placed on rear shelf 31).
In re claim 11, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Craig discloses: A stackable container walls (spanning corner walls), corner walls (16); at least two slot strips (74), outwardly facing, coupled with the corner walls; an attachment bar (31) coupled from outside of the stackable container with the at least two outwardly facing slot strips; and a quick release accessory (41) coupled with the attachment bar.
Craig fails to disclose wherein a protrusion on a lid of the stackable container fits into a self-aligning slot at a bottom of an upper stackable container to align the two stacked containers.
However, with reference to Fig. 3, Freelander discloses a portable storage system having a stackable container (12/24), wherein a convexity (18) on a lid (12) of the stackable container and a concavity (28, see Fig. 1) at a bottom (24) of an upper stackable container cause self aligning of the two stacked stackable containers (note some pre-aligning is required by a user during stacking of both the present invention and that of Freelander).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the storage system of Craig to have included a lid and container assembly to facilitate stacking of wheeled containers as taught by Freelander for the purposes of preventing the wheeled containers from rolling away while allowing for stacking to realize reduced floor space required for storage of multiple wheeled containers (Freelander, column 1, lines 27-48).
Craig in view of Freelander fail to disclose wherein each of the corner walls is positioned at an angle that is more than zero and less than ninety degrees with respect to each of its two adjacent side walls.
However, with reference to Figs. 1-5 above, Reilly discloses a corner element wherein a corner wall (25) has slots (26) and is positioned at an angle that is more than zero and less than ninety degrees with respect to each of two adjacent walls (at 24) (see figs. 4 and 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the corner wall of Craig in view of Freelander to have an angled portion positioned more than zero and less than 90 degrees relative to adjacent walls as taught by Reilly for the purposes of facilitation of attachment of accessories to the corner wall (such as the resilient corner cover 29 of Reilly). Further note that since at pages 35 and 37 of the Specification, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed angle, and in fact recites that “The angles 844 and 845 of the corner wall with respect to the front wall 842 and side wall 843, respectively, may be any angle”, and “while in other embodiments, front wall 842 and side wall 843 meet at a 90 degree angle without an intermediate corner wall 841 between them, creating a square corner”. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have formed the corner at a specific angle, since the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant (MPEP 2144.04, IV, B).
Craig in view of Freelander and Reilly fail to disclose a locking mechanism to automatically lock the stackable container to an upper stackable container, wherein a latch is manually manipulated to unlock the stackable containers.
However, with reference to Fig. 5 above, Steigerwald discloses an attachable locking mechanism for coupling stacked containers, wherein the mechanism (elements 6-12) is configured to automatically lock a top and a bottom stackable container together, wherein a latch (7) is manually manipulated to unlock the stackable containers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined a locking mechanism as taught by Steigerwald with the stackable system of Craig in view of Freelander and Reilly for the purposes of facilitating secure stacking containers during storage or transport while allowing for deliberate unstacking by use of a latch to prevent inadvertent separation of the stacked assembly (see Steigerwald, columns 5-6, lines 39-14).
In re claim 12, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Craig in view of Freelander and Reilly and Steigerwald discloses the claimed invention including latches on the attachment bar (at 71).
In re claim 13, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Craig in view of Freelander and Reilly and Steigerwald discloses the claimed invention including an attachment base (31) coupled with the quick release accessory (See fig. 1).
In re claim 17, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Craig in view of Freelander and Reilly and Steigerwald discloses the claimed invention including wherein the attachment base includes attachment hooks (71) to couple with the at least two slot strips (74).
In re claim 18, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Craig in view of Freelander and Reilly and Steigerwald discloses the claimed invention including wherein the quick release accessory (41) comprises one of a parts bin and a tool holder (see Fig. 1).
In re claim 19, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Craig in view of Freelander and Reilly and Steigerwald discloses the claimed invention including wherein the corner walls have angles with respect to adjacent walls surrounding the corner walls (e.g. 90 degree or less angles).
In re claim 20, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Craig in view of Freelander and Reilly and Steigerwald discloses the claimed invention including wherein attachment bar ends are angled to match corner walls angles (bar ends at 71 must be matched in angle to the plane of the slot strips for attachment).
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Craig in view of Freelander and Reilly and Steigerwald as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of US. Patent No. 5,221,132 (Combs et al. hereinafter).
In re claim 14, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Craig in view of Freelander and Reilly and Steigerwald discloses the claimed invention except wherein an arm deployed between the quick release accessory and the attachment base.
However, with reference to Figs. 6 and 7, Combs et al. discloses a transportable storage system wherein a tool support includes an arm (14) between an accessory (tools 20, see Fig. 7), and an attachment base (12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the attachment base of Craig in view of Freelander and Steigerwald to have included an arm as taught by Combs et al. for the purposes of allowing for custom movement of the tool/holder into a more useful position for a user to retrieve and place objections thereon.
In re claim 15, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Craig in view of Freelander and Reilly and Steigerwald discloses the claimed invention except wherein the attachment bar comprises a magnetic attachment bar.
However, Combs et al. discloses wherein an attachment bar (14) is magnetic (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the attachment bar of Craig in view of Freelander and Reilly to have been magnetic for the purposes of ensuring secure placement of tools/objects and preventing inadvertent loss/misplacement thereof.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Craig in view of Freelander and Reilly and Steigerwald as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 4,976,450 (Ellefson hereinafter).
In re claim 16, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Craig in view of Freelander and Reilly and Steigerwald discloses the claimed invention except wherein the attachment bar comprises a molle panel.
However, with reference to Fig. 2, Ellefson discloses a portable tool car wherein an attachment bar (80) includes a series of apertures for attachment of objects (82) capable of being considered a “molle panel” (Applicant’s specification page 38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the attachment bar of Craig in view of Freelander and Reilly and Steigerwald to have included a series of apertures for attachment/placement of objects as taught by Ellefson for the predictable purposes of ensuring secure attachment and retention of long handle tools and other similarly shaped objects while facilitating organization and easy retrieval of the items.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that support for the range of “more than 35 and less than 55 degrees” is supported by the specification at pages 35-36, which vaguely discloses that the corner wall “may be any angle, for example 45 degrees”. The specific claimed range is not support by the scope of the disclosure and still considered new matter, and rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues in the Remarks that Craig alone is “not stackable”, and therefore none of the other references utilized cure this deficiency. However, Craig is considered stackable, as one container of Craig is capable of being simply placed upon another container of Craig, and the Freelander reference (not argued by Applicant in these Remarks), teaches the stackability of wheeled objects by utilizing a lid to facilitate stackability contrary to Applicant’s assertion.
Applicant’s arguments to the non-supported range of 35-55 degrees of the angle of the corner wall are not persuasive, as the limitation is not being considered on the merits for the reasons asserted above in re 35 USC 112 first paragraph.
Applicant argues the Reilly does not teach a corner wall that is part of the containers and between adjacent walls. However, with reference to Fig. 8 above, Reilly does teach an angled corner wall as claimed, and the proposed combination of Craig in view of Freelander teaches the claimed limitations.
Regarding the newly recited limitations, see in re claims 1 and 11 among others above.
No further arguments are presented.
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
