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 .
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGonagle (WO 98/46489) in view of Pruett (U.S. 6,431,406).
Regarding claim 1, McGonagle teaches a collapsible container 210, shown in figures 5A and 5B, comprising a container body comprising a top portion 244, a bottom portion 216, and a middle portion 214 between the top portion and the bottom portion (figure 5A), wherein the bottom portion 216 comprises at least two handle holds on opposing sides of the body (stepped portion of 216 on opposing sides and at least two handles 250 rotatably coupled to the top portion (figures 5A and 5B), wherein the at least two handles 250 are configured to releasably couple to the handle holds (figure 5B), wherein a substantially middle portion of each of the at least two handles 250 is received by each of the handle holds (see lead line 252; figure 5B), wherein the middle portion 214 is made of an elastic material such that a height of the container body can be reduced upon compression or folding of the middle portion (figure 5B).
Further regarding claim 1, McGonagle discloses the claimed invention except for the deflectable lip. Pruett teaches that it is known to provide a container with a deflectable lip to engage the handle (see elements 7 and 8; figure 3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified container of McGonagle with a deflectable lip for each handle, as taught by Pruett, in order to lock the handle in the collapsed position and prevent accidental movement of the handle.
Regarding claim 3, the top portion at 244 comprises at least two handle attachment channels (channels in 244; figure 5A) to rotatably couple the at least two handles 250 to the collapsible container.
Regarding claim 4, the at least two handle attachment channels comprise a first open end (upper end) and a second closed end (lower end) such that the at least two handles can be removed from the collapsible container (figure 5A).
Regarding claim 6, a lid 212 releasably engageable with the top portion.
Regarding claim 7, the lid further comprises a lid cover (see element 22 in figure 3) configured to allow access to an interior of the collapsible container when opened.
Regarding claim 8, the top portion 244 terminates in an upper rim (figure 5A).
Regarding claim 9, a lid 212 releasably engageable to the upper rim 244 of the top portion.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGonagle (WO 98/46489) in view of Pruett (U.S. 6,431,406), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Swarts et al. (U.S. 2021/0237933).
Regarding claim 2, the modified container of McGonagle discloses the claimed invention except for the top portion nesting outside of the bottom portion. Swarts et al. teaches that it is known to provide a collapsible container wherein the top portion nests outside of the bottom portion (see figure 6). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified container of McGonagle with the top portion nesting outside of the bottom portion, as taught by Swarts et al., in order to reduce the vertical size of the container to a greater extent.
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGonagle (WO 98/46489) in view of Mallan (GB 2,324,716). Regarding claim 16, McGonagle teaches a collapsible container 210 comprising a container body comprising a top portion 244, a bottom portion 216, and a middle portion 214 between the top portion and the bottom portion, wherein the middle portion is made of an elastic material such that a height of the container body can be reduced upon compression or folding of the middle portion (figure 5B), at least two handles 250 rotatably coupled to the top portion (figure 5B), wherein the at least two handles 250 are coupled to the container body, and at least two handle attachment channels (channels in element 244; figure 5A) in which the at least two handles can be slidingly engaged, wherein when adjusting from a first position (first position has handles extending horizontally parallel to 244) to a second position (lower position shown in figure 5B), the at least two handles 250 slide inwardly toward one another from a first open end toward a second closed end (handles slide downwardly and radially inwardly from first position to second position), wherein when adjusting from the second position to the first position, the at least two handles slide outwardly away from one another from the second closed end toward the first open end (handles slide radially outwardly and upwardly from second position shown in figure 5B to the first position where the handles extend horizontally), and wherein when in the second position, the at least two handles 250 abut the second closed end of the at least two handle attachment channels (figure 5B), and wherein the at least two handles 250 comprise a first handle and a second handle.
McGonagle discloses the claimed invention except for the intermediate portion of the first handle being releasably couplable to an intermediate portion of the second handle. Pruett teaches that it is known to provide a container with handles wherein the intermediate portion of the first handle is releasably couplable to an intermediate portion of the second handle (see figures 1 and 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified container of McGonagle with the intermediate portion of the first handle is releasably couplable to an intermediate portion of the second handle, as taught by Mallan, in order to lock the handle in the erected state for easy grasping.
Regarding claim 17, each of the at least two handle attachment channels (in element 244) comprise a first open end (upper end) and a second closed end (lower end) such that when the at least two handles are in the second position (shown in figure 5B), the at least two handles can be nestled substantially parallel to the collapsible container (to the degree the handles of the present invention extend parallel) via the respective second closed ends (figure 5B).
Regarding claim 18, the at least two handles of Mallan terminate in a knob (7 of Mallan) coupled to a shaft, wherein the shaft is narrower than the knob (figure 2 of Mallan).
Regarding claim 19, a width of the shaft (above element 7 of Mallan; figure 2) is narrower than a width of the handle attachment channel (figure 2 of Mallan).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 id objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the secondary reference of Pruett does not teach that the deflectable lips receive a substantially middle portion of the handle. Pruett is used in the rejection only for the teaching of using a deflectable lip to engage the handle. The primary reference of McGonagle already teaches that the substantially middle portion of the handle engages the container. Adding a deflectable lip simply locks the handle into the recess provided by and shown in McGonagle. While McGonagle shows that the handles are seated in the recess, the deflectable lip (snap fit type mechanism) prevents accidental dislodging the handles. This is the motivation applied in the rejections.
Applicant argues that McGonagle does not teach that the handles slide in the attachment channels. It is the examiner’s position that the handles of McGonagle slide vertically to engage the channels and slide in a rotational manner when moving from a first position to a second position. Applicant argues that the sliding motion of the present invention is not taught by McGonagle. It is the examiner’s position that claim 16 does not set forth the sliding motion sufficiently to define the present invention over the modified invention of McGonagle. Additionally the claim does not set forth that the first open end and the second closed end are elements of the handle attachment channels. Claim 16 sets forth that the handles slide inwardly, this can be interpreted to mean that the middle portion of the handles slide in a rotational/pivoting manner in a downwardly and inwardly direction toward the closed end which can be interpreted as the closed end of the container.
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 NIKI MARINA ELOSHWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4538. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7: 00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m..
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.
/NIKI M ELOSHWAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights