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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-8, 21-22, and 24-25 are pending.
Claims 1, and 25 are currently amended.
Claims 9-20 are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites “rotateable” should read “rotatable”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-3, 5-8, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kipper (US 20020117414).
Regarding claim 1, Kipper discloses, A container (100) comprising: a housing (all the surrounding walls defining space where drawer 140 is located; Fig. 1); a first interface (top surface of 120) located along an upper surface of the housing, a drawer (140) slidably coupled to the housing, the drawer enclosing a compartment; a cover (110) pivotally (115) coupled to the housing , the cover interfacing with an outer surface of the drawer to restrict the drawer from opening when the cover is in a locked position (Fig. 2) ; and a latch (130) pivotably coupled to the housing at a front of the housing ( the latch (130) is pivotable at 130f as shown in fig. 5D and attached at a top wall of the housing) ; wherein the latch is engaged ( the latch (130) detachably engaging with the cover (110)) with the cover when the cover is in the locked position and retains the cover in the locked position (Fig. 1, 2; para 49, 52).
The limitation “the first interface configured to couple the housing to a modular tool storage device” is considered to be intended use. Examiner asserts that the recitation of intended use or purpose of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use or fulfilling said purpose, then it meets the claim. Herein, the surface of 120 is capable of coupling a housing of a modular tool storage device.
Regarding claim 2, Kipper discloses, when the cover is in an open position (Fig. 1), the drawer (140) is slidable out of the housing.
Regarding claim 3, Kipper discloses, the drawer slides out of the housing in a direction generally perpendicular to a front surface of the housing (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Kipper discloses, when the latch is disengaged from the cover (110) , the cover (110) is rotatable to the open position.
Regarding claim 6, Kipper discloses, a top panel coupled to the latch (Fig. 1) .
Regarding claim 7, Kipper discloses, latch (130) comprising a recess ( Fig. 5b; space between 130b and 130c would receive locking part of cover that is in the space) that receives the cover when the cover is in the locked position (Fig. 5d).
Regarding claim 8, Kipper discloses, to disengage the latch from the cover, the latch is rotated with respect to the housing to permit the cover to actuate from the locked position to the open position (latch 130 is connected via pivot 130f and rotates with respect to the housing; See Fig. 5b; para 65; annotated fig. below is created for demonstration purpose).
PNG
media_image1.png
281
341
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21, Kipper discloses, latch actuating between a locking position and an open position, wherein when the latch is in the locking position and the cover is in the locked position, then the latch retains the cover in the locked position (Fig. 5D.).
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kipper as applied to claim 2 in view of Schluter (US 20060132006).
Regarding claim 4, Kipper discloses, cover actuates between an open position (Fig. 1), the locked position (Fig. 2) but does not explicitly disclose, a stowed position in which the cover is within a cavity defined by housing.
Schluter discloses a cabinet comprising a cover (70) that actuates between an open position (Fig. 2), the locked position (Fig. 1) , a stowed position (Fig. 3) in which the cover is within a cavity (cavity in which 70 is placed as shown in fig. 1-3) defined by housing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kipper to incorporate a cover that has a stowed position in which the cover is within a cavity defined by housing as taught by Schluter since this would prevent the cover from getting in the way of the user when the toolbox is in use.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kipper as applied to claim 21, in view of Seiders (US 11976498).
Regarding claim 22, Kipper as modified does not disclose, the latch is spring biased to the locking position.
Seiders discloses a container comprising a latch (100) that is spring (150) biased to the locking position (Col. 18; lines 20-30; Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kipper to incorporate a latch with spring biased to the locking position as taught by Seiders as it would improve the securement the lid and the body by a way of constant force applied by the spring.
Claim(s) 24, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kipper as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hoppe (US 20170166352).
Regarding claim 24, and 25 Kipper does not explicitly disclose, first interface comprising a plurality of female coupling components defined by the upper surface, , each of the female coupling components comprising a recessed surface and a first tongue extending above the recessed surface, and each of the female coupling components comprising a second tongue extending above the recessed surface, wherein the first tongue and the second tongue are spaced apart from each other.
Hoppe discloses a first interface (See annotated fig. below) comprising a plurality of female coupling (See annotated fig. below) components defined by the upper surface, , each of the female coupling components comprising a recessed surface (See annotated fig. below) and a first tongue (See annotated fig. below) extending above the recessed surface, and each of the female coupling components comprising a second tongue (See annotated fig. below) extending above the recessed surface, wherein the first tongue and the second tongue are spaced apart from each other (See annotated fig. below) .
PNG
media_image2.png
537
529
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kipper to have first interface comprising a plurality of female coupling components defined by the upper surface, each of the female coupling components comprising a recessed surface and a first tongue extending above the recessed surface, and each of the female coupling components comprising a second tongue extending above the recessed surface, wherein the first tongue and the second tongue are spaced apart from each other as taught by Hoppe for the purpose of surly stacking containers.
The limitation “the plurality of female coupling components configured to couple the upper surface of the housing to a bottom surface of the modular tool storage device” is considered to be functional language. The prior art of Kipper-Hoppe has all the structures required perform the claimed functional limitation. Hence, the prior art is inherently capable of performing the limitation. It is well settled that it is possible for functional language to define structure, but that where no distinguishing structure has been defined, the claim is not patentable and is fully met by the reference. See Mpep 2173.05(g). See also General Electric v. United States, 198 USPQ 73 which further reinforced the concept that functional language which defines no structure cannot distinguish over the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicants amendment regarding claim 24 is considered and persuasive , as such the specification objection is withdrawn.
Applicants argument and amendment regarding claims 23, and 25 is considered and found persuasive, as such 35 U.S.C 112 rejections has been withdrawn.
Applicants argument regarding Kipper failing to disclose, “a latch pivotably coupled to the housing at a front of the housing, the latch detachably engaging with the cover” is consider but moot since the current office action does not rely on reversal of parts. Kipper as disclosed in the current office action discloses latch (130) that are pivotably coupled (130f) to the housing (the part where 130 is mounted in considered housing) in front of the housing. In the instant application, para 51 recites “Top panel 26 is coupled to latch 46.” Similarly, the prior art discloses a top panel that is coupled to the latch.
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 SANJIDUL ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7670. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 -5:00.
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.
/SANJIDUL ISLAM/ Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights