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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the reply filed on 1/29/2026, wherein claims 1, 8, 15 were amended. Claims 1-21 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 1/29/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 15 lines 11-12 "wheren the container and the another container of the plurality of stackable containers are stacked " should read "wherein two containers of the plurality of stackable containers are stacked".
Appropriate correction is required.
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 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 8 states " the one or more second stacking features of the second container is circumferentially offset from each of the one or more first stacking features of the first container." Specifically, the term "circumferential" is not taught. Circumference relates to a circle. The present invention is rectangular. Claims 9-14 directly or indirectly depend from claim 8 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 8-20 are 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 “the one or more second stacking features of the second container is circumferentially offset from each of the one or more first stacking features of the first container” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. First, this is not taught by the as filed specification, see the 112a rejection above. Circumference relates to the outside of a circle or curved geometric figure. So, having “circumferentially offset” stacking features would be the result of identical containers that are rotated. Based on prosecution history, it is unclear whether this is the applicants desired interpretation of the phrase. Claims 9-14 directly or indirectly depend from claim 8 and are also rejected.
The term “wherein the one or more stacking features of each of the plurality of stackable containers are differently spaced along the upper portions” in claim 15is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. Without the context of stacking, this statement does not make sense for the condition of only “one” stacking feature. How can a singular stacking feature have a spacing? Spacing only occurs between multiple stacking features (it is assumed spacing is referring to the gap between adjacent stacking features). Claims 16-20 directly or indirectly depend from claim 15 and are also rejected.
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, 2-4, 8-11, 15-18, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Eyles (US 3353707 A).
With respect to claim 1, 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 one or more first stacking features are arranged in a first configuration on the first upper portion (a singular 19, 24, or 23), wherein the one or more second stacking features are arranged in a second configuration on the second upper portion (a singular 19, 24, or 23, not the same as the first configuration), wherein the first configuration is different from the second configuration, and wherein the first container is stacked within the second container..
Examiner Note: With respect to “wherein the first configuration is different from the second configuration” one does not need to consider all stacking features (19, 24, 23) of Eyles. The requirement here is to consider only one stacking feature for one container (for example item 23) and one stacking feature for the other container (for example item 24). Eyles also shows different configurations for stacking features. Also, with respect to the longitudinal axis, Eyles teaches of a different first configuration and second configuration for duplicate containers when stacked (not having the stacking features aligned prevents jamming).
With respect to claim 2, Eyles discloses the first container for stacking with the second container of claim 1, 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 3, Eyles discloses the first container for stacking with the second container of claim 1, 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 4, Eyles discloses the first container for stacking with the second container of claim 1, wherein at least one top surface (31) of the one or more second stacking features is configured to contact a bottom wall (18) 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 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 at least one top surface (31, 32) of the one or more second stacking features is contacts a bottom wall (29) of the first upper portion of the first 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)
Examiner Note: See 112b above.
PNG
media_image1.png
678
478
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
700
462
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 9, Eyles discloses the first container for stacking with the second container 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 discloses the first container for stacking with the second container 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 discloses the first container for stacking with the second container 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 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 the container and the another container 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, and wherein the one or more stacking features of each of the plurality of stackable containers (see note below) are differently spaced along the upper portions.
Examiner Note: With respect to “wherein the one or more stacking features of each of the plurality of stackable containers are differently spaced along the upper portions” one does not need to consider all stacking features (19, 24, 23) of Eyles. The requirement here is to consider only one stacking feature for one container (for example item 23) and one stacking feature for the other container (for example item 24).
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 21, Eyles discloses the first container for stacking with the second container of claim 1, wherein the one or more walls are two or more walls.
Examiner Note: What defines wall separation? There are edges that separate the sidewall 12 of Eyles (thus including a bottom wall as claimed in claims 4 and 8) – these can be considered separate wall portions. This idea of a bottom wall as discussed in claims 4 and 8 inherently produces “two or more walls” (as the bottom wall and the wall exterior to the bottom wall).
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) 1-6, 12-13 and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eyles (US 3353707 A).
With respect to claim 1, 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 one or more first stacking features are arranged in a first configuration on the first upper portion (configuration of figure 2), wherein the one or more second stacking features are arranged in a second configuration on the second upper portion (configuration of figure 2), and wherein the first container is stacked within the second container.
Eyles failed to disclose wherein the first configuration is different from the second configuration. Eyles teaches of a singular configuration for stacking, however, Eyles teaches that the singular configuration to be intentionally misaligned in order to prevent jamming (abstract and col 5 lines 32-43). Having a singular configuration adds a functionality of having two stacking configuration: one spaced apart (like the present invention) and another with no spacing (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. It has been held that omission of an element (in this case a stacking configuration without spacing) 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.)
Examiner Note: With respect to “wherein the first configuration is different from the second configuration” one does not need to consider all stacking features (19, 24, 23) of Eyles. The requirement here is to consider only one stacking feature for one container (for example item 23) and one stacking feature for the other container (for example item 24). Eyles also shows different configurations for stacking features. Also, with respect to the longitudinal axis, Eyles teaches of a different first configuration and second configuration for duplicate containers when stacked (not having the stacking features aligned prevents jamming).
PNG
media_image1.png
678
478
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
700
462
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, Eyles discloses the first container for stacking with the second container of claim 1, 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 3, Eyles discloses the first container for stacking with the second container of claim 1, 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 4, Eyles discloses the first container for stacking with the second container of claim 1, wherein at least one top surface (31) of the one or more second stacking features is configured to contact a bottom wall (18) 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.
With respect to claim 21, Eyles discloses the first container for stacking with the second container of claim 1, wherein the one or more walls are two or more walls.
Examiner Note: What defines wall separation? There are edges that separate the sidewall 12 of Eyles (thus including a bottom wall as claimed in claims 4 and 8) – these can be considered separate wall portions. This idea of a bottom wall as discussed in claims 4 and 8 inherently produces “two or more walls” (as the bottom wall and the wall exterior to the bottom wall).
Claim(s) 7 and 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 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, 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.
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.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has positively recited the stacking configuration in the amended claims. Although examiner appreciates the amendments, it does not overcome the prior art rejection. The claims are directed towards "one or more stacking features" (claims 1, 8, and 15) so only a singular stacking feature of Eyles needs to be considered. And in a singular stacking feature of Eyles, there are different configurations of stacking features (for examples spacing between 19s and 23, 24).
With respect to claim 1, Examiner has included an alternate argument that incorporates the consideration of all stacking features of Eyles (19, 21, 23) as constituting the one or more stacking features.
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 extension fee 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 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.
/S.K.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/ERNESTO A GRANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights