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 .
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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 27, 2026 has been entered.
After reviewing the IDS, filed April 27, 2026, the following rejections are being made:
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.
Claims 1, 3-11 and 13-21 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. For claims 1, 11 and 21, It is unclear why the unit is described as a “cabinet” when the disclosed invention is a shipping container for batteries which is inherently a larger storage unit. Also, the limitation that the fitting pieces are an extrusion is indefinite. In fact, it could be interpreted that the wall units are extruded panels, e.g. extruded concrete, and have been extruded together with their side surfaces and their fitting pieces. Furthermore, the term “fitting piece” is indefinite and vague. A fitting piece can be interpreted as a piece that fits something that includes side faces that fit together. Finally, the term “compatible” is indefinite and vague, i.e. it is unclear what shape is considered compatible with another.
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.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beighton (GB2,346,626) in view of Shi (CN113321462). Beighton teaches a cabinet unit (Fig. 6), comprising: at least one side wall (2,15,16; Fig. 6), having a first side wall unit (e.g. unit type “2” in Fig. 5) and a second side wall unit (e.g. another unit of the three unit of the type “2” in the upper portion of Fig. 5 or another unit of the type “15” or “16” in the lower portion of Fig. 5) adjacent to the first side wall unit (Fig. 5); wherein the first side wall unit and the second side wall unit are made of fiber or glass-reinforced concrete (page 3, lines 3-7); wherein a first side surface (e.g. upper part of Fig. 5, unit 2 on the left hand side, side surface located on the right hand side of the unit 2) of the first side wall unit defined by a first fitting piece/extrusion (8; see page 3, line 2 aluminum frame. Given the space of the aluminum element 8 in Figs. 3,4 the aluminum profile has implicitly been extruded); a second side surface of the second side wall unit corresponding to the first side surface of the first side wall unit .
Morgan in view of Shi further teaches that the side wall units each have a protruding rib (13 of Morgan).
Claims 1, 6-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan (5,573,348) in view of in view of Shi (CN113321462). Morgan teaches a cabinet unit (Fig. 4), comprising: at least one side wall, having a first side wall unit (12) and a second side wall unit (12) adjacent to the first side wall unit (edge to edge in column 13, lines 10-14); wherein the first side wall unit and the second side wall unit are made of steel fiber-reinforced concrete (Materials of Construction portion of patent); wherein a first side surface of the first side wall unit defined by a first fitting piece/extrusion (30); a second side surface of the second side wall unit corresponding to the first side surface of the first side wall unit .
Morgan in view of Shi further teaches that a number of the at least one side wall is two (edge to edge in column 13, lines 10-14 of Morgan), each of other side surfaces of the first side wall unit and the second side wall unit of each side wall has a fitting piece (30); and the cabinet unit further comprises: a bottom plate (10), having fitting pieces (30) on two opposite peripheral sides of an upper surface thereof (Fig. 4), and a top plate (13), having fitting pieces (30) on two opposite peripheral sides of a lower surface thereof (Fig. 4); wherein the two side walls respectively correspond to the two opposite peripheral sides of the bottom plate and the top plate, and fitting pieces at tops and bottoms of the first side wall unit and the second side wall unit of each of the two side walls are fixedly connected to the corresponding fitting pieces on the peripheral sides of the bottom plate and the top plate. The bottom plate and the top plate (made the same as side walls) are made of ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC). Wherein there is a sealing piece (welds) at an interface between the first fitting piece and the second fitting piece and at an interface between any two corresponding fitting pieces.
Claims 3, 4 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beighton (GB2,346,626) in view of Shi (CN113321462) as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Wittler (5,305,567). As stated above, Beighton in view of Shi teaches first and second fittings on UHPC side wall units. For claims 3, 4 and 21, Beighton in view of Shi fails to teach side wall units having fitting pieces with snap-fit features. Wittler teaches side wall units (12) having fitting pieces (20) with snap-fit features (34,42). The first fitting piece has a male shape (42) and the second fitting pieces has a female shape (34), the shapes compatible with each other. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use alternate fittings on the side wall units of Beighton, i.e. using the fittings of Wittler in place of the fittings presently used, to provides readily attachable and detachable side wall units.
Claims 3, 4 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan (5,573,348) in view of in view of Shi (CN113321462) as applied to claims 1, 6-7 and 9 above, and further in view of Wittler (5,305,567). As stated above, Morgan in view of Shi teaches first and second fittings on UHPC side wall units. For claims 3, 4 and 21, Morgan in view of Shi fails to teach side wall units having fitting pieces with snap-fit features. Wittler teaches side wall units (12) having fitting pieces (20) with snap-fit features (34,42). The first fitting piece has a male shape (42) and the second fitting pieces has a female shape (34), the shapes compatible with each other. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use alternate fittings on the side wall units of Morgan, i.e. using the fittings of Wittler in place of the fittings presently used, to provides readily attachable and detachable side wall units.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wittler (5,305,567) in view of Shi (CN113321462). Wittler teaches a “cabinet” unit (Figs. 3a-3c; structure in body of the claim makes up the cabinet, as best understood), comprising: a first member (12) having a first side surface, the first side surface is defined by a first fitting piece (20); and a second member (12) having a second side surface, the second side surface is defined by a second fitting piece (20); wherein the first fitting piece and the second fitting piece are an extrusion; and the first fitting piece and the second fitting piece are configured to form a snap fit with one another (via 34,42). For claim 21, Wittler fails to teach that the members are made of UHPC. Rather the members are made of foam. Shi teaches a cabinet with members made of UHPC material (see English translation). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cabinet of Wittler by using UHPC concrete, such as is taught by Shi, in place of the foam for the wall units, for stronger walls/structure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 8, 10, and 13-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANET M WILKENS whose telephone number is 571-272-6869. The examiner can normally be reached Mon thru Thurs 7am-5:30pm EST.
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, Daniel Troy can be reached at 571-270-3742. 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.
Wilkens
June 4, 2026
/JANET M WILKENS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights