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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/20/2026 has been entered.
Claim 1-15 were amended. Claims 1-21 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the in every rotational orientation of the first container relative to the second container, at least one top surface of the one or more second stacking features contacts a bottom wall of the first upper portion of the first container must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
Claim 8 states “in every rotational orientation of the first container relative to the second container, at least one top surface of the one or more second stacking features contacts a bottom wall of the first upper portion of the first container”. This statement is not true of the as-filed invention, nor is it supported from the as-filed disclosure. The container is only fully depicted in rectangular form, despite a cylindrical form being referenced in [0037]. Rotational orientations are never described for any container shape. [0003] also describe the stacking features as offset from one another. There is no direct support for at least one top surface of the one or more second stacking features contacting a bottom wall of the first upper portion of the first container in every rotational orientation. This statement wouldn’t be possible of a rectangular object, as some rotational configurations wouldn’t allow for nesting. Further if these claims are directed towards a cylindrical container, a drawing objection is required. Claims 9-14 directly or indirectly depend from claim 8 and are also rejected.
Claim 15 states “wherein the one or more stacking features of each of the plurality of stackable containers are arranged at different positions along the upper portions in every rotational orientation relative to the stacking features of each other container”. This statement is not true of the as-filed invention, nor is it supported from the as-filed disclosure. Rotational orientations are never described for any container shape. There is no direct support for each of the plurality of stackable containers being arranged at different positions along the upper portions in every rotational orientation relative to the stacking features of each other container. The specification only discusses the spacing of each container’s stacking features being different. Different spacing does not inherently mean different positioning in every rotational orientation. Positioning in [0059] of the specification is only discussed with regards to specific stacking features in a two container configuration. Claims 16-20 directly or indirectly depend from claim 15 and are also rejected.
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.
Claims 8-14 and 21 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.
The term “circumferential” in claim 8 renders the claim indefinite. The term circumference applies to cylindrical and circular objects. The present invention as previously described . For the purposes of examination, it shall be interpreted that circumference is used in lieu of perimeter. Claims 9-14 directly or indirectly depend from claim 8 and are also rejected.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "one or more walls" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Levenhagen (US 3734341 A).
With respect to claim 1, Levenhagen discloses a stacking system comprising a first container (14’) and a second container (another 14), wherein the first container comprises: a base portion (16); a plurality of walls extending upwardly from the base portion, defining a first corner between two of the plurality of walls (see figure 3 on 14’), terminating in a first flange (26), and defining a first upper portion of the one or more walls disposed adjacent the first flange, wherein the one or more walls and the base portion form a first interior volume; and a first stacking feature (40) located a first distance from the first corner and extending from the first upper portion toward the first interior volume of the first container, wherein each of the one or more first stacking features has a top surface (top surface of 40), the second container (14) comprises: a base portion (16); a plurality of walls extending upwardly from the base portion, defining a corner (see figure 3, labeled on 14) between two of the plurality of walls, terminating in a second flange (26), and defining a second upper portion of the one or more walls disposed adjacent the second flange, wherein the one or more walls and the base portion form a second interior volume, the second interior volume being substantially equal to the first interior volume; and a second stacking feature (40) located a second distance from the second corner and extending from the second upper portion toward the second interior volume of the second container, wherein each of the one or more second stacking features has a top surface, wherein the first distance is different from the second distance, and wherein the first container is stacked within the second container (orientation and labels as seen in figure 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
620
478
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, Levenhagen discloses the stacking system of claim 1, wherein the first flange and the second flange (both are 26) are each outwardly extending from their respective one or more walls.
With respect to claim 3, Levenhagen discloses the wherein the first upper portion (upper face of 40) is perpendicular to a surface of the base portion (16) of the first container, and wherein the second upper portion (upper face of 40) is perpendicular to a surface of the base (16) portion of the second container.
With respect to claim 4, Levenhagen discloses the wherein at least one top surface (top of 40) of the second stacking feature is configured to contact a bottom wall (bottom 85) of the first container when the first container is stacked on top of the second container, and wherein the bottom wall is defined by an outwardly extending portion of the first upper portion.
With respect to claim 21, Levenhagen discloses the first container for stacking with the second container of claim 1, wherein the one or more walls are two or more walls. (there are four walls)
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) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levenhagen (US 3734341 A).
With respect to claim 5, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the one or more first stacking features extend from the first upper portion toward the first interior volume of the first container with a length that is less than 2 millimeters. However, a precise measurement for length or width can be viewed as a change of shape of Levenhagen design and not novel in view of the guidelines established In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). The application has presented no argument which shows that the particular configuration of their stacking features is significant or is anything more than one of numerous configurations a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of allowing stacking from Levenhagen invention. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459.
With respect to claim 6, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the one or more first stacking features each have a width that is less than 4 millimeters. . However, a precise measurement for length or width can be viewed as a change of shape of Levenhagen design and not novel in view of the guidelines established In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). The application has presented no argument which shows that the particular configuration of their stacking features is significant or is anything more than one of numerous configurations a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of allowing stacking from Levenhagen invention. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levenhagen (US 3734341 A) in view of Collins (US 20080060966 A1).
With respect to claim 7, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the first container and the second container are each comprised of APET. Presently, Levenhagen teaches of the material of the container being plastic. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely stacking containers, Collins taught of a container that also composed of plastic and further specifies the material as APET (page 2 [0038]). It would have been obvious to try to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use APET since there are only a finite number of predictable solutions. The container is already taught to be made of plastic and there are only so many plastic materials available. Thus, making the container out of APET would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product was not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. See MPEP 2143.
Claim(s) 8-13 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eyles (US 3353707 A).
With respect to claim 8, Eyles discloses a stacking system comprising a first container and a second container, wherein: the first container comprises: a base portion (11, 14); one or more walls (12) extending upwardly from the base portion, terminating in a first flange (13), and defining a first upper portion (24) of the one or more walls disposed adjacent the first flange (13), wherein the one or more walls and the base portion form a first interior volume; and one or more first stacking features (19) extending from the first upper portion (24) toward the first interior volume of the first container, wherein each of the one or more first stacking features has a top surface (31), the second container (duplicate container) comprises: a base portion; one or more walls extending upwardly from the base portion, terminating in a second flange, and defining a second upper portion of the one or more walls disposed adjacent the second flange, wherein the one or more walls and the base portion form a second interior volume; and one or more second stacking features extending from the second upper portion toward the second interior volume of the second container, wherein each of the one or more second stacking features has a top surface (31, 32), wherein the first container is stacked within the second container, wherein the bottom wall (29) is defined by an outwardly extending portion of the first upper portion, and wherein the at least one top surface (31,32) of the one or more second stacking features of the second container is circumferentially offset from each of the one or more first stacking features (19) of the first container. (this is true and intended when stacked, the features are offset to purposefully prevent jamming)
Eyles failed to directly disclose in every rotational orientation of the first container relative to the second container, at least one top surface of the one or more second stacking features contacts a bottom wall of the first upper portion of the first container. However, this would be a result of completely unaligned stacking features. Presently, Eyles teaches of being able to advantageously achieve a nestled and stacked configuration. The stacking configuration (non-aligned stacking features) Eyles directly teaches to prevent jamming (col 3 lines 3-9). Eyles teaches of a stacking feature that can be intentionally misaligned in order to prevent jamming (abstract and col 5 lines 32-43). Eyles essentially teaches of having two stacking configurations: one stacked (like the present invention, to prevent jamming) and another directly nestled (col 4 line 66- col 5 line 5). However, if one only wanted a configuration that was spaced apart, it would be obvious to have two different stacking configurations, as this would always guarantee no jamming. This deviation would result in the claimed subject matter of every rotational orientation of the first container relative to the second container, at least one top surface of the one or more second stacking features contacts a bottom wall of the first upper portion of the first container. It has been held that omission of an element (in this case the directly nestled stacking configuration) and its function is obvious if the function of the element is not desired. Ex parte Wu , 10 USPQ 2031 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). See also In reLarson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965) (Omission of additional framework and axle which served to increase the cargo carrying capacity of prior art mobile fluid carrying unit would have been obvious if this feature was not desired.)
PNG
media_image2.png
678
478
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
700
462
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 9, Eyles teaches the stacking system of claim 8, wherein the first flange and the second flange (item 13 to 17) are each outwardly extending from their respective one or more walls.
With respect to claim 10, Eyles teaches the stacking system of claim 8, wherein the first upper portion (24) is perpendicular to a surface of the base portion (11, 14) of the first container, and wherein the second upper portion is perpendicular to a surface of the base portion of the second container.
With respect to claim 11, Eyles teaches the stacking system of claim 8, wherein the one or more first stacking features are arranged in a first configuration on the first upper portion, wherein the one or more second stacking features are arranged in a second configuration on the second upper portion, and wherein the first configuration is different from the second configuration. This is taught by having two different embodiments (so figure 2 versus figure 8)
With respect to claim 12, the references as applied to claim 8, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the one or more first stacking features extend from the first upper portion toward the first interior volume of the first container with a length that is less than 2 millimeters. However, a precise measurement for length or width can be viewed as a change of shape of Eyles design and not novel in view of the guidelines established In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). The application has presented no argument which shows that the particular configuration of their stacking features is significant or is anything more than one of numerous configurations a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of allowing stacking from Eyles’s invention. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459.
With respect to claim 13, the references as applied to claim 8, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the one or more first stacking features each have a width that is less than 4 millimeters. . However, a precise measurement for length or width can be viewed as a change of shape of Eyles design and not novel in view of the guidelines established In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). The application has presented no argument which shows that the particular configuration of their stacking features is significant or is anything more than one of numerous configurations a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of allowing stacking from Eyles’s invention. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459.
With respect to claim 15, Eyles discloses a plurality of stackable containers, each container of the plurality of stackable containers comprising: a base portion (11, 14); one or more walls (12) extending upwardly from the base portion, terminating in a flange (13), and defining a upper portion (24) of the one or more walls disposed adjacent the flange (13), wherein the one or more walls and the base portion form an interior volume, the interior volume of each container of the plurality of stackable containers being equal; and one or more first stacking features (19) extending from the upper portion (24) toward the interior volume of the container, wherein two containers of the plurality of stackable containers are stacked, wherein each of the one or more stacking features has a top surface (31), wherein the top surface (31) is configured to contact a bottom wall (18) of an upper portion of the another container of the plurality of stackable containers.
Eyles failed to directly disclose wherein the one or more stacking features of each of the plurality of stackable containers are arranged at different positions along the upper portions in every rotational orientation relative to the stacking features of each other container. Presently, Eyles teaches of being able to advantageously achieve a nestled and stacked configuration. Meaning, there is a configuration with the stacking features aligned. The stacking configuration (non-aligned stacking features) Eyles directly teaches to prevent jamming (col 3 lines 3-9). Eyles teaches of a stacking feature that can be intentionally misaligned in order to prevent jamming (abstract and col 5 lines 32-43). Eyles essentially teaches of having two stacking configurations: one stacked (like the present invention, to prevent jamming) and another directly nestled (col 4 line 66- col 5 line 5). However, if one only wanted a configuration that was spaced apart, it would be obvious to have two different stacking configurations, as this would always guarantee no jamming. This deviation would result in the claimed subject matter of every rotational orientation of the first container relative to the second container, at least one top surface of the one or more second stacking features contacts a bottom wall of the first upper portion of the first container. It has been held that omission of an element (in this case the directly nestled stacking configuration) and its function is obvious if the function of the element is not desired. Ex parte Wu , 10 USPQ 2031 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). See also In reLarson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965) (Omission of additional framework and axle which served to increase the cargo carrying capacity of prior art mobile fluid carrying unit would have been obvious if this feature was not desired.)
With respect to claim 16, Eyles discloses the plurality of stackable containers of claim 15, wherein the one or more stacking features of each of the plurality of stackable containers have different configurations with respect to each other. (This is true, only a singular stacking feature need be considered see note below claim 15 rejection.)
With respect to claim 17, Eyles discloses the plurality of stackable containers of claim 15, wherein the upper portion (24) is perpendicular to a surface of the base portion (11, 14).
With respect to claim 18, Eyles discloses the plurality of stackable containers of wherein the top surface of each of the one or more stacking features (31) is configured to be able to rest on contact a bottom wall (18) of an upper portion of the another container when the plurality of stackable containers are stacked, and wherein the bottom wall is defined by an outwardly extending portion of the upper portion of the another container.
With respect to claim 19, the references as applied to claim 15, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the one or more first stacking features extend from the first upper portion toward the first interior volume of the first container with a length that is less than 2 millimeters. However, a precise measurement for length or width can be viewed as a change of shape of Eyles design and not novel in view of the guidelines established In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). The application has presented no argument which shows that the particular configuration of their stacking features is significant or is anything more than one of numerous configurations a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of allowing stacking from Eyles invention. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459.
With respect to claim 20, the references as applied to claim 15, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the one or more first stacking features each have a width that is less than 4 millimeters. . However, a precise measurement for length or width can be viewed as a change of shape of Eyles design and not novel in view of the guidelines established In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). The application has presented no argument which shows that the particular configuration of their stacking features is significant or is anything more than one of numerous configurations a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of allowing stacking from Eyles invention. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eyles (US 3353707 A) in view of Collins (US 20080060966 A1).
With respect to claim 14, the references as applied to claim 8, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the first container and the second container are each comprised of APET. Presently, Eyles teaches of the material of the container being plastic. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely stacking containers, Collins taught of a container that also composed of plastic and further specifies the material as APET (page 2 [0038]). It would have been obvious to try to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use APET since there are only a finite number of predictable solutions. The container is already taught to be made of plastic and there are only so many plastic materials available. Thus, making the container out of APET would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product was not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. See MPEP 2143.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that a circumference can relate to any outer perimeter. However, applicant fails to identify a reputable source that defines a circumference as such. Examiner has already provided the definition
With respect to the amendments to claims 8 and 15, the container is not limited in shape and a new 112a rejection is made. Additionally, a new reading of Eyles is utilized that is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 3353707 A, US 3498494 A, US 3721367 A, US 3734341 A, US 3836042 A, US 4113095 A, US 4416374 A, US 20080060966 A1, US 20130213847 A1, US 20140190861 A1, US 8887918 B2, US 9272814 B2, US 20200399018 A1, US 20230012901 A1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYMREN K SANGHERA whose telephone number is (571)272-5305. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached on (571)272-4561. 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.
/SYMREN K SANGHERA/Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights