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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
In Fig. 2 and 3, reference number 8 (double walls) only points to one wall, not two.
The figures do not appear to distinguish between outlet openings and drain openings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 8, 11, and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 currently says “… the at least two of the side walls are arranged opposite one another.” The Examiner believes the claim is intended to state “…the at least two [[of the]] side walls are arranged opposite one another.”
Claim 11 currently says “… the outer cover forms an edge that is molded onto the at least two of the side walls….” The Examiner believes the claim is intended to state “…the outer cover forms an edge that is molded onto the at least two [[of the]] side walls...”
Claim 13 currently references “a circumferential double wall (3)”. The Examiner believes the claim was intended to reference “a circumferential double wall [[(3)]] (8)”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim(s) 14 is a product-by-process claim(s). Regarding product-by-process claims, MPEP § 2113 states "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." For purposes of further prosecution all claims will be interpreted as stated above.
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 5 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 5 recites the limitation "the area" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-8, and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Beckerman et al. (US 2023/0174288) (hereinafter Beckerman).
Regarding Claim 1
Beckerman teaches a transport and storage container (below – Fig. 1, 4, and 6), comprising: a base plate (18); side walls (15a-d) which extend perpendicularly from the base plate and together form a peripheral upper container edge (16); a plurality of drainage openings (50) arranged in at least two of the side walls in an area proximal to the base plate; and an outer cover (30) covering the plurality of drainage openings (Paragraphs [0029], [0030], [0035], [0044], and [0045]).
PNG
media_image1.png
423
457
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
427
426
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
279
271
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2
Beckerman teaches the at least two of the side walls (15a-d) are arranged opposite one another.
Regarding Claim 5
Beckerman teaches an area of the side walls (15a-d) proximal to the base plate (18) extends up to a maximum distance of 30 mm from the base plate towards the upper container edge (16).
Regarding Claim 6
Beckerman teaches the drainage openings (50) extend from the base plate (18) inside the side walls (15a-d).
Regarding Claim 7
Beckerman teaches an extent of the drainage openings (50) in a longitudinal direction of the side walls (15a-d) comprises up to 40% of a longitudinal extent of the respective side wall.
Regarding Claim 8
Beckerman teaches the plurality of drainage openings (50) includes at least five drainage openings arranged in each of the at least two opposite side walls (15a-d).
Regarding Claim 11
Beckerman teaches the outer cover (30) forms an edge that is molded onto the at least two side walls (15a-d) and runs parallel to them, as can be seen in the figures above.
Regarding Claim 12
Beckerman teaches the outer cover (30) with the side walls (15a-d) forms a circumferential double wall in the area proximal to the base plate (18).
Regarding Claim 13
Beckerman teaches the outer cover (30) and the side walls (15a-d) form at least one outlet opening (50) for liquids on an edge facing away from the upper container edge (16).
Regarding Claim 14
Beckerman teaches the transport and storage container is a single piece injection-molded plastic part (Paragraph [0055]).
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.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beckerman as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding Claims 3 and 4
Beckerman teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above. Beckerman further teaches the outer cover (30) extends over an entire width and a portion of the height of each of the plurality of drainage openings (50). However, Beckerman does not teach the outer cover (30) extends over an entire height of each of the plurality of drainage openings (50), and extends to the base plate (18).
At the time of filing, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to extend the outer cover so that it extends over an entire height of each of the plurality of drainage openings and extending to the base plate, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A). Applicant has not disclosed that the outer cover extending over an entire height of each of the plurality of drainage openings and extending to the base plate provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose or solves a stated problem. As such, the claim of the outer cover extending over an entire height of each of the plurality of drainage openings and extending to the base plate does not provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record.
Regarding Claim 9
Beckerman teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above. Beckerman further teaches the plurality of drainage openings can provide at least a 25-35% open area within a lower region of the container, that is the bottom 0.5” (or 12.7mm) of the side walls (Paragraph [0052]).
Beckerman does not specifically teach an area and arrangement of the drainage openings within the side walls are configured for keeping a maximum liquid level within the transport and storage container below 13 mm.
However, since Beckerman teaches the drainage openings being in the lowermost 12.7mm of the side wall as well as the drainage openings extending all the way to the base plate (Fig, 6), it would appear obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art, that based on the openings being located below a 13mm threshold, that the container of Beckerman is more than capable of having an area and arrangement of the drainage openings within the side walls are configured for keeping a maximum liquid level within the transport and storage container below 13 mm. As such, the claim does not appear patentable over the prior art of record. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Regarding Claim 10
Beckerman teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above. Beckerman further teaches the plurality of drainage openings can provide at least a 25-35% open area within a lower region of the container, that is the bottom 0.5” (or 12.7mm) of the side walls (Paragraph [0052]).
Beckerman does not specifically teach an area and arrangement of the drainage openings within the side walls are configured for a liquid level to remain below 10 mm when liquid is applied to the transport and storage container with a volume flow of 20 mm/min.
However, since Beckerman teaches the drainage openings being in the lowermost 12.7mm of the side wall, the drainage openings extending all the way to the base plate (Fig. 6), and all the other structural limitations of the claims, it would appear obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art, that based on the location and number of openings, that the container of Beckerman is more than capable of having an area and arrangement of the drainage openings within the side walls are configured for a liquid level to remain below 10 mm when liquid is applied to the transport and storage container with a volume flow of 20 mm/min. As such, the claim does not appear patentable over the prior art of record. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Further pertinent prior art includes but is not limited to that which is listed in the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER CASTRIOTTA whose telephone number is (571)270-5279. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am-5pm.
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.
/JENNIFER CASTRIOTTA/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/DON M ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733