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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 10-12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Zank et al 6415945.
Zank et al discloses the claimed invention as recited in the claims as shown below:
1. A set of nesting containers, comprising: a first container 816 having one or more first side walls supporting a ledge 880 and a first lip; and a second container See Fig.23 and 23A with plurality of containers 880 having one or more second side walls supporting a second lip; wherein the second lip of the second container rests upon the ledge of the first container when the second container is nested within the first container.
PNG
media_image1.png
603
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
2. The set of nesting containers of claim 1, wherein no portion of the second container is higher than the first container when the second container is nested within the first container. See Fig.22
3. The set of nesting containers of claim 1, wherein no side wall of the second container contacts any side wall of the first container when the second container is nested within the first container. See Fig.22
4. The set of nesting containers of claim 1, wherein: each of the first container and the second container comprises a bottom; and the bottom of the second container does not contact the bottom of the first container when the second container is nested within the first container. See Fig.23 and 23A
6. The set of nesting containers of claim 5, wherein the first container is a collector-type container. See Fig.23 and 23A
10. The set of nesting containers of claim 1, wherein one or both the first lip and the second lip are continuous about the side walls of the first container and the second container, respectively. See Fig.23 and 23A
11. The set of nesting containers of claim 1, wherein one or both the first lip and the second lip are discontinuous about the side walls of the first container and the second container, respectively. See Fig.23 and 23A
12. The set of nesting containers of claim 1, wherein the ledge of the first container is continuous about a circumference of the first container. See Fig.23 and 23A
14. The set of nesting containers of claim 1, further comprising: an additional second container having an additional second lip 1000; wherein both the second container and the additional second container are simultaneously nested within the first container.
PNG
media_image2.png
320
654
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, and 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Geier 8857802.
Geier discloses the claimed invention as recited in the claims as shown below:
1. A set of nesting containers, comprising: a first container 102 having one or more first side walls supporting a ledge 134 and a first lip 133; and a second container See Fig.6 and 202 having one or more second side walls supporting a second lip; wherein the second lip of the second container rests upon the ledge of the first container when the second container is nested within the first container.
2. The set of nesting containers of claim 1, wherein no portion of the second container is higher than the first container when the second container is nested within the first container. See Fig.12
3. The set of nesting containers of claim 1, wherein no side wall of the second container contacts any side wall of the first container when the second container is nested within the first container. See Fig.12
6. The set of nesting containers of claim 5, wherein the first container is a collector-type container. See Fig.1
7. The set of nesting containers of claim 1, further comprising: a lid installable 190 upon the second container; wherein no portion of the lid is higher than the first container.
10. The set of nesting containers of claim 1, wherein one or both the first lip and the second lip are continuous about the side walls of the first container and the second container, respectively. See Fig.12
11. The set of nesting containers of claim 1, wherein one or both the first lip and the second lip are discontinuous about the side walls of the first container and the second container, respectively. See element 131 which is a notch in the lips
12. The set of nesting containers of claim 1, wherein the ledge of the first container is continuous about a circumference of the first container. See Fig.1
13. The set of nesting containers of claim 1, wherein the ledge of the first container is discontinuous about a circumference of the first container. See element 131 which is a notch in the lips
14. The set of nesting containers of claim 1, further comprising: an additional second container having an additional second lip 1000; wherein both the second container and the additional second container are simultaneously nested within the first container. See Fig.2 where the ledge has multiple lips 150, 154
15. The set of nesting containers of claim 1, further comprising at least one cover 190.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) 5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zank et al 6415945 in view of Murphy 2008/0149552 A1.
Zank et al discloses the claimed invention except for strainer type container.
Murphy discloses a container which has strainer apertures 18 which allows a container with a cutting board 13 to have utility such as draining water or liquid and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed by modifying the Zank et al device by providing aperture which allows liguids to be drained by providing the predictable result add apertures to drain liquids. KSR
In regard to claim 9, The Zank et al containers could be installed within a cut-out of a cutting board of Murphy as shown in the the modification above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The 892 form discloses prior art being made of record.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEE D WILSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4499. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6;30-4;30.
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, BRIAN KELLER can be reached at 571-272-8548. 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.
LEE D. WILSON
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
Ldw
/LEE D WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723 February 23, 2026