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 7/1/2025 has been entered.
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.
Claim 21 is 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.
Claim 21 recites redundant limitations “wherein the interior volume includes a compartment that is configured to removably receive a sensor display configured to measure and display current temperature and relative humidity within the interior volume” in lines 6-8 and 13-15 of page 5 of the claim. It is not clear whether the redundant limitations are to require an additional compartment, or reflect a typographical erroring the claim. For the purposes of examination, the redundant limitation will be interpreted as a typographical error.
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, 2, 8, 9, 12, 15, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Felice et al. in view of Stonier, Guglielmelli et al., and Jost (all of record).
In re claims 1 and 12, with reference to fig. 1, Felice et al. discloses: A stackable storage container, comprising: a base (19); a pair of sidewalls (20a, 20a’) extending perpendicularly from each side of the base; a pair of end walls (20b, 20b’) extending perpendicularly from each end of the base; an upper opening (21) formed from the pair of sidewalls and the pair of end walls extending from the base producing an interior volume; an interior volume defined from the upper opening; a lid (14) removably secured over the upper opening to maintain an airtight seal (“airtight seal” paragraph 0025).
PNG
media_image1.png
578
512
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Felice et al. fails to disclose wherein the base having a honeycomb structure.
[AltContent: textbox (Vertical Perimeter Edges)][AltContent: arrow]However, with reference to Fig. 11, Stonier discloses a base (32) of a stackable container which utilizes a honeycomb-like protrusion (46) to strengthen the bottom panel (column 4, lines 27-36).
[AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
278
332
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 bottom panel/base of Felice et al. to have utilized a honeycomb-like structure as taught by Stonier for the purposes of strengthening the bottom panel (Stonier, column 4, lines 27-36).
Felice et al. fails to disclose a vacuum gauge configured to monitor and display current air pressure within a closed stackable storage container.
However, with reference to Figs. 7 and 8, Guglielmelli discloses a vacuum container (110) with a vacuum gauge (168/170) configured to monitor and display current air pressure within a closed stackable storage container.
PNG
media_image3.png
752
612
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 provided a vacuum gauge to the container of Felice et al. in view of Stonier as taught by Guglielmelli for the predictable purposes of measuring and displaying conditions within the container to an outside user.
Felice et al. in view of Stonier and Guglielmelli et al. disclose the claimed invention including wherein the honeycomb structure includes a plurality of vertical perimeter edges extending downwardly from a lower exterior side of the base (see fig. 11 above).
Felice et al. in view of Stonier and Guglielmelli et al. disclose the claimed invention including wherein the honeycomb structure includes the vertical perimeter edges (i.e. edges around the perimeter) each intersecting at a perpendicular angle to form a grid of squares (90 degree intersect at corner, see Fig. 11 above). In the event that the vertical perimeter edges are to include the surfaces forming the grid squares 48 themselves, note that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have formed the grid as squares having sides parallel/perpendicular to that of the walls of the container instead of rotated as a diamond shape of Stonier, 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). Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 0038 applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations (i.e. squares vs. diamonds or other rotated shapes formed by the vertical edges for the purposes of reinforcing).
Felice et al. in view of Stonier and Guglielmelli et al. disclose the claimed invention including wherein the pair of sidewalls and the pair of end walls each include a plurality of exterior, vertical, fins or ridges (at 24, see Fig. 1 of Felice et al.).
Felice et al. in view of Stonier and Guglielmelli et al. disclose the claimed invention including wherein the pair of end walls includes a plurality of quick connect fittings (16/18) that allows for different types of air hose connections (paragraph 0027).
Felice et al. in view of Stonier and Guglielmelli et al. disclose the claimed invention including an interior-face end of each of the quick connect fittings include a fine mesh filter to prevent particles from one or more air hoses from entering the interior volume (HEPA filter, paragraph 0029).
Felice et al. in view of Stonier and Guglielmelli et al. discloses the claimed invention except wherein the interior volume includes a compartment that is configured to removably receive a sensor display configured to measure and display current temperature and relative humidity within the interior volume, and the stackable storage container is transparent to allow an individual to view the sensor display while it is secured within its compartment in the stackable storage container, allowing the individual to monitor a plurality of stackable storage container conditions and ensure that they remain correct for a type of stored material.
However, with reference to Figs. 1 and 3, Jost discloses a container wherein the interior volume includes a compartment that is configured to removably receive a sensor display (5) configured to measure and display current conditions within the interior volume, and the container is transparent (at shield 4) to allow an individual to view the sensor display (5) while it is secured within its compartment in the container, allowing the individual to monitor a plurality of stackable storage container conditions and ensure that they remain correct for a type of stored material.
PNG
media_image4.png
564
544
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 container of Felice et al. in view of Stonier and Guglielmelli et al. to have included a display behind a transparent portion of the container for the predictable purposes of facilitating monitoring of the internal conditions of the container while preserving the airtight seal (Jost, column 5, lines 33-45).
In re claim 2, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Felice et al. in view of Stonier and Guglielmelli et al. and Jost disclose the claimed invention including wherein the base is rectangular-shaped (paragraph 0025).
In re claim 8, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Felice et al. in view of Stonier and Guglielmelli et al. and Jost does not disclose wherein the fine mesh filter is composed of food grade stainless steel.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized a known material such as stainless steel for the filter, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. MPEP 2144.07. Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 0048 applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
In re claim 9, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Felice et al. in view of Stonier and Guglielmelli et al. and Jost disclose the claimed invention including wherein the interior volume includes a plurality of vertically oriented support posts (23).
In re claim 15, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Felice et al. in view of Stonier and Guglielmelli et al. and Jost disclose the claimed invention including wherein the lid includes a friction fit connection (see Fig. 2 and paragraph 0025 describing mating of elements, friction inherently occurring where lid and container contact one another).
In re claim 19, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Felice et al. in view of Stonier and Guglielmelli et al. and Jost disclose the claimed invention including wherein the vacuum gauge includes an analog readout for determining current pressure within the stackable storage container (see Guglielmelli Figs. 7 and 8 above).
In re claim 20, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Felice et al. in view of Stonier and Guglielmelli et al. and Jost disclose the claimed invention including wherein the stackable storage containers are composed of food grade material (plastic can be considered food grade, Felice et al. paragraph 0024, as Applicant is silent to specific materials for the container at paragraph 0054).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Felice et al. in view of Stonier and Guglielmelli et al. and Jost as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 3,613,987 (Laidman hereinafter).
In re claim 10, with reference to fig. 1, Felice et al. in view of Stonier and Guglielmelli et al. and Jost discloses the claimed invention except wherein the lid includes a plurality of bracing contact points positioned above each of the vertically oriented support posts.
However, with reference to Figs. 1 and 2, Laidman discloses a stackable container wherein a lid includes a plurality of bracing contact points (38) which engage above vertically oriented support posts (34).
PNG
media_image5.png
658
490
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 the container base and lid of Felice et al. in view of Stonier and Guglielmelli et al. and Jost to have included engaging base and lid support posts and bracing contact points as taught by Laidman for the purposes of providing adequate support and protection against vertical stress applied to a closed container (Laidman, column 2, lines 41-60).
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Felice et al. in view of Stonier and Guglielmelli et al. and Jost as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of US PG Pub No. 2008/0272131 (Roberts et al. hereinafter).
In re claims 13 and 14, with reference to fig. 1, Felice et al. in view of Stonier and Guglielmelli et al. and Jost discloses the claimed invention except wherein the sensor display includes a plurality of Bluetooth monitoring sensors, the Bluetooth monitoring sensors include a plurality of Bluetooth hydrometer/temperature sensors.
However, Roberts et al. discloses a storage container with internal condition sensors such as a temperature sensor (28) which connects with an RF transponder (30) via Bluetooth (paragraph 0025.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided sensors for temperature and/or other environmental conditions such as humidity which communicate via Bluetooth connection as taught by Roberts et al. for the predictable purposes of communicating internal conditions to an outside user.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Felice et al. in view of Stonier and Guglielmelli et al. and Jost as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US PG Pub No. 2015/0069068 (Hariram hereinafter).
In re claim 16, with reference to fig. 1, Felice et al. in view of Stonier and Guglielmelli et al. and Jost discloses the claimed invention except wherein the lid includes a silicone gasket to enhance the seal between the lid and an upper perimeter edge of the stackable storage container.
However, Hariram discloses a vacuum container (10) with a lid (12) and a silicone gasket (36) to enhance the seal between the container and the lid (paragraph 0028)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided a silicone gasket as taught by Hariram to the lid/container junction of Felice et al. in view of Stonier and Guglielmelli et al. for the purposes of enhancing the performance of the lid/container sealing junction of the container of Felice et al. in view of Stonier and Guglielmelli et al. and Jost.
Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Felice et al. in view of Stonier and Guglielmelli et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 7,287,661 (Knutsson et al. hereinafter).
In re claims 17 and 18, with reference to fig. 1, Felice et al. in view of Stonier and Guglielmelli et al. and Jost discloses the claimed invention except wherein the lid includes an upper side of the lid that includes a plurality of projections that define an area upon which another stackable storage container stacks, and wherein the projections are a plurality of L-shaped corner guides.
However, with reference to Fig. 1 below, Knutsson et al. discloses a container wherein a lid (5) includes an upper side of the lid that includes a plurality of projections (54) that define an area upon which another stackable storage container stacks, and wherein the projections are a plurality of L-shaped corner guides (see Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image6.png
584
508
media_image6.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 lid of Felice et al. in view of Stonier and Guglielmelli et al. and Jost to have included corner stacking guides as taught by Knutsson et al. for the purposes of facilitating efficient stacking and thereby storage and handling of the container (column 5, lines 58-64).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Felice et al. in view of Stonier, Guglielmelli et al., Jost, Laidman, Roberts et al., Hariram, and Knuttson et al.
In re claim 21, Felice et al. in view of Stonier, Guglielmelli et al., Jost, Laidman, Roberts et al., Hariram, and Knuttson et al. disclose: A stackable storage container, consisting of: a base having a honeycomb structure; a pair of sidewalls extending perpendicularly from each side of the base; a pair of end walls extending perpendicularly from each end of the base; an upper opening formed from the pair of sidewalls and the pair of end walls extending from the base producing an interior volume; an interior volume defined from the upper opening; a lid removably secured over the upper opening to maintain an airtight seal; and a vacuum gauge configured to monitor and display current air pressure within a closed stackable storage container; wherein the base is rectangular-shaped or cylindrical-shaped; wherein the honeycomb structure includes a plurality of vertical perimeter edges extending downwardly from a lower exterior side of the base; wherein the honeycomb structure includes the vertical perimeter edges each intersecting at a perpendicular angle to form a grid of squares; wherein the pair of sidewalls and the pair of end walls each include a plurality of exterior, vertical, fins or ridges; wherein the pair of end walls includes a plurality of quick connect fittings that allows for different types of air hose connections; further comprising an interior-face end of each of the quick connect fittings include a fine mesh filter to prevent particles from one or more air hoses from entering the interior volume; and wherein the interior volume includes a compartment that is configured to removably receive a sensor display configured to measure and display current temperature and relative humidity within the interior volume (as in re claim 1 above); wherein the fine mesh filter is composed of food grade stainless steel (as in re claim 8 above); wherein the interior volume includes a plurality of vertically oriented support posts (as in re claim 9 above); wherein the lid includes a plurality of bracing contact points positioned above each of the vertically oriented support posts (as in re claim 10 above); wherein the interior volume includes a compartment that is configured to removably receive a sensor display configured to measure and display current temperature and relative humidity within the interior volume (as in re claim 1 above); wherein the stackable storage container is transparent to allow an individual to view the sensor display while it is secured within its compartment in the stackable storage container, allowing the individual to monitor a plurality of stackable storage container conditions and ensure that they remain correct for a type of stored material (as in re claim 12 above); wherein the sensor display includes a plurality of Bluetooth monitoring sensors (as in re claim 13 above); wherein the Bluetooth monitoring sensors include a plurality of Bluetooth hydrometer/temperature sensors (as in re claim 15 above); wherein the lid includes a snap fit connection or a friction fit connection (as in re claim 15 above); wherein the lid includes a silicone gasket to enhance the seal between the lid and an upper perimeter edge of the stackable storage container (as in re claim 16 above); wherein the lid includes an upper side of the lid that includes a plurality of projections that define an area upon which another stackable storage container stacks (as in re claim 17 above); wherein the projections are a plurality of L-shaped corner guides (as in re claim 18 above); wherein the vacuum gauge includes an analog readout for determining current pressure within the stackable storage container or a digital readout for determining current pressure within the stackable storage container (as in re claim 19 above); and wherein the stackable storage containers are composed of food grade material (as in re claim 20 above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/1/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 8 of the Remarks that Felice, Stonier and Guglielmelli do not teach a perpendicular angle to form a grid of squares. However, see in re claim 1 above, wherein the perimeter edges meet at perpendicular angles of Stonier, which bound a grid of squares (48), and wherein interpreted as the squares having perimeters formed by edges meeting at perpendicular angles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have been obvious to have provided the reinforcing grid in a similar configuration which achieving the same results (i.e. reinforcing the surface).
Applicant argues on page 8 of the Remarks that Felice, Stonier and Guglielmelli do not teach a plurality of exterior, vertical, fins or ridges. However, as in re claim 5 of the previous action and in re claim 1 of the current action, elements 24 in Fig. 1 of Felice are interpreted as the claimed elements.
Applicant argues on pages 8-9 of the Remarks that Felice, Stonier and Guglielmelli do not teach a plurality of quick connect fittings that allows for different types of air hose connections. However, absent any specific definition of “quick connect”, the limitation is considered to read upon those (elements 16/18) which are capable of being used to “allow” numbers types of hose connections, air or otherwise.
Applicant argues on page 9 of the Remarks that Jost alone is not capable of being “for flushing the atmosphere of the container with nitrogen or other gases, or for removing air entirely via a vacuum pump, thus preserving the container’s contents”. However, this limitation is not currently claimed, and no current rejection relies solely upon the Jost reference to teach all of the limitations.
No further arguments are presented.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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