DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/2/2026 has been entered.
Claim 1, 12-15, 19 were amended, claim 7-9 was canceled, claims 20-23 are new. Claims 1-6 and 10-23 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 15 and 23 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.
The term “the fifth distance is greater than the fourth distance” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “the fifth distance is greater than the fourth distance” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The fourth distance is said to be the distance from the opening to the third projecting area. The fifth distance is said to be the distance from the opening to the fourth projecting area. This is essentially saying that the third projecting area (62) is closer to the opening than the fourth projecting area (64). However, from drawings (figures 18-19), it would appear that the fourth projecting area (64) is closer to the opening than the third projecting area (62). The claimed statement does not appear to be true and therefore requires remediation. For the purposes of examination, it shall be assumed that the drawings and specification are correct, and that the fifth distance is less than the fourth distance.
The term “substantially perpendicular” in claim 23 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially perpendicular” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What are the bounds and metes of the term "substantially"? What is a reasonable amount of deviation from perpendicular? It is unclear how broad the term “substantially” should be considered. For the purposes of interpretation, the term “substantially” shall be broadly read.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10-18, 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dilabee (see amazon webpage attached) in view of Camp (US 20230122425 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Dilabee discloses a stackable container assembly, comprising: a first container (one of the containers of figure 1 Dilabee) having: an upper surface (figure 1 Dilabee below), a lower surface (figure 1 Dilabee), a front surface (figure 1 Dilabee) extending between the upper surface and the lower surface, the front surface defining an opening configured to receive a lid; an attachment ring (figure 1 Dilabee) received within the opening and coupled to the front surface; and the lid (in title of amazon listing) coupled to the attachment ring and a second container (another container of Dilabee) having: an upper surface (figure 1 Dilabee below); a lower surface (figure 1 Dilabee below a front surface (figure 1 Dilabee below) extending between the upper surface and the lower surface, the front surface defining an opening configured to receive a lid, an attachment ring (figure 1 Dilabee below) received within the opening and coupled to the front surface; and the lid (figure 1 Dilabee below) coupled to the attachment ring.
Dilabee failed to disclose an upper surface with first, second, and third recessed areas; a lower surface with first and second projecting areas configured to couple with the first and third recessed areas of another first container; and an upper surface with fourth and fifth recessed areas; a lower surface with third and fourth projecting areas configured to align with the first and second recessed areas of the first container and align with the fourth and fifth recessed areas of another second container. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely containers, Camp taught of a container that included first, second, third, fourth and fifth recessed areas (see annotated fig 86A and 86C below) and first, second, third, and fourth projecting areas (see annotated fig 86A and 86C below) in order to allow for stacking (page 1 [0002] and page 23 [0299]). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the upper/lower surfaces of Dilabee to include a plurality of recesses and projections as taught by Camp in order to allow for stacking of multiple containers.
Examiner Note: The attachment ring is a fixed feature of the present invention. It can be understood that Dilabee’s attachment ring is a fixed feature that can be considered within the opening. The opening would be larger without this feature. Further, with respect to drawings, for ease of understanding, a first and second container is labeled in the Camp reference.
PNG
media_image1.png
742
796
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
406
504
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
688
604
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations. The references further teach wherein the first recessed area and the second recessed area are spaced apart from one another by a first distance, and the first recessed area and the third recessed area are spaced apart from one another by a second distance that is greater than the first distance. (as seen in figure 86C of Camps stacking features) (see claim 1 rejection above for combination rationale)
With respect to claim 3, the references as applied to claim 2, above, disclose all the limitations. The references further disclose wherein the first container includes a plurality of first containers that are stacked one on top of another with the first and second projecting area of an upper one of the plurality of first containers fitted into the first and third recessed areas (stacking features identified in fig 86A-C of Camp) on the upper surface of an adjacent lower one of the plurality of first containers limiting relative movement between the upper one of the plurality of first containers and the lower one of the plurality of first containers. (stacking configuration evident in figure 86C of Camp) (see claim 1 rejection above for combination rationale)
With respect to claim 4, the references as applied to claim 3, above, disclose all the limitations. The references further disclose wherein the second projecting area of the upper one of the plurality of first containers includes at least one concaved area (446 of Camp) within the second projecting area and the lower one of the plurality of first containers includes at least one projection (456 of Camp) dimensioned to fit into the concaved area within the second projecting area further limiting relative movement between the upper one of the plurality of first containers and the lower one of the plurality of first containers. (see claim 1 rejection above for combination rationale)
With respect to claim 5, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations. The references further disclose wherein the third and fourth projecting areas of the second container are dimensioned and shaped to fit into the first and second recessed areas of the first container such that the second container is stacked on top of the first container. (stacking features identified in 86A-C, stacking shown in figures 86A-C of Camp) (see claim 1 rejection above for combination rationale)
With respect to claim 6, the references as applied to claim 5, above, disclose all the limitations. The references further discloses wherein the first and second recessed areas of the first container include a pair of upwardly extending projections (456 of Camp) located proximate opposite ends of the first and second recessed areas, and the third and fourth projecting areas (fig 86A-86B of Camp) of the second container are dimensioned such that when inserted into the first and second recessed areas of the first container, the second container is prevented from moving in a lengthwise direction of the first and second recessed areas of the first container by the upwardly extending projections. (see claim 1 rejection above for combination rationale)
With respect to claim 10, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations. The references further disclose further comprising the another first container identical to the first container, the another first container being stacked on top of the first container with the first and second projecting areas of the another first containers being fitted into the first and third recessed areas on the upper surface of the first container limiting relative movement between the another first container and the first containers. (configuration can be understood by annotated figures 86A and 86B of Camp above, just consider the second container another one of the first container with the appropriate nomenclature, with these stacking features being placed on Dilabee). (see claim 1 rejection above for combination rationale)
With respect to claim 11, the references as applied to claim 10, above, disclose all the limitations. The references further disclose further comprising wherein the second container is stacked on top of the another first container with the fourth and fifth projecting areas of the second container being fitted into the first and second recessed areas on the upper surface of the another first container limiting relative movement between the another first container and the second container. (configuration can be understood by annotated figures 86A and 86B above, other figures of Camp also show multiple stacking arrangements. This requires stacking of three identical containers and would be considered not novel under the guidelines established In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) in which “the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.”) (see claim 1 rejection above for combination rationale)
With respect to claim 12, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations. The references further disclose wherein the first container includes a greater number of recessed areas than the second container (Regarding the nomenclature established in claim 1, this can be considered true. Note, claim 1 does not disclose “at least one recessed area”. The amount of recessed areas established by claim 1 means that this claim is met) and the second recessed area is located closer to the third recessed area than the first recessed area. (this relationship is evident by the features identified in figure 86C of Camp).
With respect to claim 13, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations, except for wherein the first recessed area is disposed a first distance from the opening in the first container, the second recessed area is disposed a second distance from the opening in the first container, the third recessed area is disposed a third distance from the opening in the first container, the first distance is greater than the second distance, and the second distance is greater than the third distance. However, this orientation of would have been obvious to try as there are only a finite number of orientations (4) for placement of Camps projections on Dilabee. The claim language is met by three out of the four possible orientations; having the third recessed area closest to the opening and extend parallel to the opening, or having the opening orthogonal to the stacking features (can be visualized by opening on either long wall of Camp). The only orientation that doesn’t meet the claim language is having the opening closest to the first recessed area. It would have been obvious to try to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the third recessed area closest to the opening since there are only a finite number of predictable solutions. Either the opening is closest to the third recess or its closest to the first recess. Thus, making the opening closest to the third recessed area (causing the first distance to be greater than the second distance, and the second distance to be greater than the third distance) would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product was not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. See MPEP 2143.
With respect to claim 14, the references as applied to claim 13, above, disclose all the limitations. The references further discloses wherein the first projecting area is disposed the first distance from the center of the opening in the first container along the first direction and the second projecting area is disposed the third distance from the center of the opening in the first container along the first direction. (refer to claim 13 rejection above. These claim limitations are met by orientation of Camps stacking feature on Dilabees container. Specifically, having the opening closest to the third recessed area. See Camps figures above for distance.)
With respect to claim 15, the references as applied to claim 14, above, disclose all the limitations, except for wherein the opening in the second container extends along a second plane, the third projecting area is disposed a fourth distance from a center of the opening in the second container along a second direction, the fourth projecting area is disposed a fifth distance from the center of the opening in the second container along the second direction, the second direction parallel to the lower surface of the second container, and the fifth distance is greater than the fourth distance. (See 112b above, for interpretation, the drawings and specification shall be used) The claim language is met by three out of the four possible orientations; having the fourth projecting area closest to the opening and extend parallel to the opening, or having the opening orthogonal to the stacking features (can be visualized by opening on either long wall of Camp). The only orientation that doesn’t meet the claim language is having the opening closest to the third projecting area. It would have been obvious to try to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the third recessed area closest to the opening since there are only a finite number of predictable solutions. There are four possible orientations and either the opening is closest to the fourth projecting area or its closest to the third projecting area. Thus, making the opening closest to the fourth projecting area would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product was not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. See MPEP 2143.
With respect to claim 16, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations. The references further disclose wherein: the second projection defines a pair of concave areas (front end labeled on fig 8C, back end present, not labeled on Camp) located proximate opposite ends of the second projection; the first recessed area defines a first pair of upwardly extending projections (456 portions labeled on Fig56C, herein known as 456 of Camp) located proximate opposite ends of the first recessed area; and the second recessed area defines a second pair of upwardly extending projections (456 of Camp) located proximate opposite ends of the second recessed areas. (See claim 1, above, for combination rationale).
With respect to claim 17, the references as applied to claim 16, above, disclose all the limitations. The references further disclose wherein the third recessed area defines a third pair of upwardly extending projections (456 of Camp) located proximate opposite ends of the third recessed area, a first distance defined between the third pair of upwardly extending projections, a second distance defined between the second pair of upwardly extending projections, a third distance defined between the third pair of upwardly extending projections, the third distance greater than the first distance, the third distance greater than the first distance. (See claim 1, above, for combination rationale).
Examiner Note: A distance “defined between” projections does not state that the measurement is from one upwardly extending projection to another. An imaginary distance can be used (that could even be perpendicular) and located between the pair of upwardly extending projections. Alternatively, one may use a distance from the top of the upwardly extending projections to the bottom of another. Or from the top to a midpoint. Or midpoint to midpoint. There are many broad interpretations of the claim language that allow this claim to be met.
With respect to claim 18, the references as applied to claim 17, above, disclose all the limitations. The references further disclose wherein: the fourth recessed area defines a fourth pair of upwardly (456 of Camp) extending projections located proximate opposite ends of the fourth recessed area; and the fifth recessed area defines a fifth pair of upwardly extending (456 of Camp) projections located proximate opposite ends of the fifth recessed area. (See claim 1, above, for combination rationale).
With respect to claim 21, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations. The references further disclose further comprising: a flat surface extending between the first projecting area and the second projecting area (see note below, stacking features of Camp show flat surfaces); wherein the first projecting area is vertically aligned with the first recessed area and the second projecting area is vertically aligned with the third recessed area (This relationship is best illustrated in figures 86A and 86C of Camp). (See claim 1, above, for combination rationale).
Examiner Note: There are multiple flat surfaces that exist between the first projecting area and the second projecting area of Camp, any of these features can be selected to meet the claim language.
With respect to claim 22, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations. The references further disclose wherein at least a portion of the lid of the second container is positioned above the upper surface of the second container. This configuration is seen in the orientation of the back most container of Dilabee Figure 1.
With respect to claim 23, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations. The references further disclose wherein: the upper surface of the first container extends along a first plane (upper surface plane of figure 1 Dilabee); at least a portion of the front surface of the first container extends along a second plane (see note below), the second plane substantially perpendicular to the first plane; and the lid in the first container extends along a third plane (plane containing the lid flat surface Dilabee), the third plane intersecting the first plane at a first oblique angle and intersecting the second plane at a second oblique angle.
Examiner Note: “At least a portion of the front surface” is broadly interpreted, such that any intersection of the second plane meets the claim limitations (since it is a plane, it would extend in the z-direction). An imaginary second plane that is “substantially” perpendicular to the upper surface and intersects the front surface can meet the claim language.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dilabee (see amazon webpage attached) in view of Camp (US 20230122425 A1) and Peng (US 20240060340 A1)
With respect to claim 19, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations. The references further teach wherein: the first container includes: a back surface (figure 1 Dilabee) extending between the upper surface and the lower surface; a right surface (figure 1 Dilabee) extending between the upper surface, the lower surface, the back surface, and the front surface; and a left surface (figure 1 Dilabee) extending between the upper surface, the lower surface, the back surface, and the front surface; and the front surface of the first container includes; a flat portion (flat surface of front surface, figure 1 Dilabee) extending between the lower surface, the right surface, and the left surface; wherein the first recessed area, the second recessed area, and the third recessed area (stacking features as taught by Camp refer to claim 1 rejection for combination rationale) each extend parallel to an upper edge of the front surface of the first container above the opening of the first container (the incorporation of Camps stacking features on Dilabee would inherently result in the stacking features being parallel to an upper edge of the front surface).
The references failed to disclose and a flange portion extending from the flat portion, the right surface, the left surface, and the upper surface, the flange portion defining the opening, the flange portion extending away from the back surfaces. The term flange portion can encompass a broader “portion” which starts from the left surface, right surface, upper surface and encompass the present “attachment ring”. In this view, however, the attachment ring is not a separate entity. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely containers, Peng taught of a container that has a separate flange (top portion of container) and attachment ring (12) which help enabled a child lock structure. It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the container of Dilabee to include a separate attachment ring and flange as taught by Peng in order to allow for a child lock.
Examiner Note: A flange portion can be broadly read as the upwardly extending portion, in addition to the surrounding area.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dilabee (see amazon webpage attached) in view of Camp (US 20230122425 A1) and Taylor (US 3707241 A)
With respect to claim 20, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations, except for wherein the lid of the first container is threadably coupled to the attachment ring of the first container and the lid of the second container is threadably coupled to the attachment ring of the second container. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely containers, Taylor taught of a container that included a threadably attached lid (20) as an alternate means to securing a lid on a container. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of containers with lids before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a thread-able lid closure as taught by Taylor for the snap on lid closure as disclosed by DilaBee since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, with the difference being the substitution of the elements. In the present case, a threaded closure provides a more secure attachment. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the one known element for the other to produce a predictable result (MPEP 2143).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-20220242613-A1 OR US-20100006467-A1 OR US-20250108958-A1 OR US-20240351743-A1 OR US-20240150079-A1 OR US-20240067394-A1 OR US-20230078495-A1 OR US-20220097924-A1 OR US-20220099420-A1 OR US-20210221561-A1 OR US-20190352048-A1 OR US-20170275077-A1 OR US-20140251855-A1 OR US-20110155613-A1 OR US-20090014348-A1 OR US-20080047853-A1 OR US-20050098469-A1 OR US-20250108957-A1 OR US-20230122425-A1 OR US-10308394-B1
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYMREN K SANGHERA whose telephone number is (571)272-5305. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached on (571)272-4561. 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.
/SYMREN K SANGHERA/Examiner, Art Unit 3735