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 10/21/2025, wherein claims 1-8, 10, 12-15 were amended, claim 11 is cancelled. Claims 1-10 and 12-20 are pending.
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the replacement sheets appears to be random floating numbers, for example figure 2 has 14 and 14a floating without an arrow. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected 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 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 2 discusses a connector, and claim 5 discusses swinging locking tabs in the invention. However, independent claim 1 introduces "at least one mounting interface on a side of the base". It was never taught that both of these features co-existed (at least one mounting interface opposite the open side and the connector). Nor would the combination be obvious, as the swinging locking tab and/or connector would disrupt the areas for the at least one mounting interface. The drawings fail to show a connector in combination with the at least one mounting interface. Claims 3-5 directly or indirectly depend from claim 2 and are also rejected.
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, 16, and 19 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 “swinging locking tab” in claim 5is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “swinging locking tab” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What is a swinging locking tab? The drawings and specification fail to further elaborate on this feature. How can the connector "swing"? From drawings, it looks like this feature is static. If this really can swing, what is the structure enabling the swinging function? How is it considered both “swinging” and “locking”? Further, with the amended matter (claim 1 having mounting interface opposite the base).
The term “a stacking direction” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a stacking direction” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What is a stacking direction? Is this the direction of the movement that creates a stacked formation? Is it the direction that the container is stacked along? There can be multiple different interpretations of a stacking direction, it is unclear which is proper. Also, isn’t the direction of the recesses already stated in claim 15? Is this direction different than that stated in claim 15? Lastly, the claims only claims two storage containers, no wall mounts. The secondary container is stacked within the primary container. How is this direction considered parallel to where the recesses extend?
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the plurality of cleats" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Which cleats are being discussed? The cleats of the storage component or the cleats of the wall rail. Newly amended claim 1 introduces cleats of the storage component.
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) 1-5 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Anderson (US 5975660 A).
With respect to claim 1, Anderson discloses a storage system comprising: a primary storage component having a first open side (doors open), the primary storage component comprising a body (10) surrounding a storage area, the body comprising; a lid (24), a base (12), and at least two sidewalls (14, 16, 18, 20) extending between the base and the lid a plurality of cleats on the lid (protrusion 46 on 24): a plurality of recesses formed in a lower surface of the base (inner recesses within 46 on 12) at least one mounting interface on a side of the base opposite the first open side configured to align the primary storage component with one or more wall rails (intended function, can consider side surfaces adjacent back an “interface”, no positive recitation of wall rails); a plurality of support ribs (94) extending from the body, the plurality of support ribs including at least one pair of support ribs on opposing sides of the body; and a secondary storage component (96) configured to be inserted within the storage area of the primary storage component through the at least one open side and aligned with the at least one pair of support ribs.
PNG
media_image1.png
636
471
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
662
438
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, Anderson discloses the storage system of claim 1, wherein a connector (42,44,etc) configured to couple adjacent sidewalls of the at least two sidewalls to each other, one of the at least two sidewalls to the base, or one of the at least two sidewalls to the lid.
With respect to claim 3, Anderson discloses the storage system of claim 2, wherein the connector is (42, 44,etc) configured for ambidextrous installation.
With respect to claim 4, Anderson discloses the storage system of claim 2, wherein the connector (42, 44,etc) extends from the base (12) to the lid (24).
With respect to claim 5, Anderson discloses the storage system of claim 2, wherein the connector (42, 44,etc) forms a swinging locking tab configured to lock the adjacent sidewalls of the body to each other. (enable swinging and locking? See 112 above)
With respect to claim 15, Anderson discloses the storage system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of recesses (figure 3 above) extend in a direction towards the storage area, the recesses being configured to receive a complementary cleat (intended function, not actually claimed).
Examiner Note: Perspective of from the top surface of the base, the recess extends downward (away from the storage area).
With respect to claim 16, Anderson discloses the storage system of claim 15, wherein the plurality of recesses each extend in a direction in a direction parallel to a stacking direction of the primary storage component. (see 112 above, additionally it could be said that the recess extend in many directions)
With respect to claim 17, Anderson discloses the storage system of claim 1, wherein the secondary storage component comprises an insertion flange (outer most portions of 98/106) configured to be engaged with the at least one pair of support ribs, the secondary storage component selected from the group consisting of: a lidded container (98/106), a panel configured for coupling an item to be stored, an open-sided tray.
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) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (US 5975660 A) in view of Maitland (US 4261464 A)..
With respect to claim 6, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for further comprising a divider (30) inserted within the storage area and aligned with one or more ribs of the plurality of support ribs (ribs between 18), the divider comprising a plurality of ribs (ribs between 30as and 30bs) on a first surface thereof and a plurality of ribs on a second surface thereof, the second surface being opposite the first surface. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely divisible containers, Maitland taught of a container with divide (30) with a plurality of support ribs (30b, 30a) on opposing surfaces which allows for more optionality in divider placement. It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the dividing system of Anderson to include dividers with ribs as taught by Maitland in order to allow for more diverse placement of dividers.
PNG
media_image3.png
315
436
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 7, the references as applied to claim 6, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references further teach wherein the divider (30 of Maitland) is configured to divide the storage area in a first direction. (see claim 6 rejection above for combination rationale)
With respect to claim 8, the references as applied to claim 7, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references further teach wherein further comprising a second divider (C8 of Maitland) configured to divide the storage area in a second direction different from the first direction. (see claim 6 rejection above for combination rationale)
With respect to claim 9, the references as applied to claim 8, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references further teach wherein the second direction is perpendicular to the first direction. (inherent relation between 30 and C8) (see claim 6 rejection above for combination rationale)
Claim(s) 10, 12-13, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (US 5975660 A) in view of Loree (US 20140138332 A1).
With respect to claim 10, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for the at least one mounting interface extends from an outer surface of the body. However in a similar field of endeavor, namely containers, Loree taught of a wall mountable container that is configured to mount to a support surface (item 241). This allows for vertical stability/wall placement (abstract). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the container of Anderson to include mounts as taught by Loree in order to allow for wall mounting.
PNG
media_image4.png
642
404
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 12, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the at least one mounting interface comprises at least one bracket extending from the body. However in a similar field of endeavor, namely containers, Loree taught of a wall mountable container that includes one bracket (item 241). This allows for vertical stability/wall placement (abstract). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the container of Anderson to include mounts as taught by Loree in order to allow for wall mounting.
With respect to claim 13, the references as applied to claim 12, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references further teach wherein the at least one mounting interface comprises negative space (indented space adjacent bracket 241) adjacent to the at least one bracket, the negative space being to align the primary storage component with an alignment protrusion of one or more wall rails.
With respect to claim 18, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except further comprising a storage rail configured to be mounted to a vertical support surface, the storage rail comprising a plurality of cleats, an alignment protrusion on one side of the storage rail and an alignment recess on an opposite side of the storage rail. However in a similar field of endeavor, namely containers, Loree taught of a storage rail (100) that includes a plurality of cleats (177 on 104), an alignment protrusion (top 215), and an alignment recess (226 bottom). This allows for vertical stability/wall placement (abstract). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the container of Anderson to include a storage rail with the storage components as taught by Loree in order to allow for wall mounting.
With respect to claim 19, the references as applied to claim 18, above, disclose all the limitations. The references further disclose wherein the plurality of cleats are arranged in an array including at least two rows and at least two columns of cleats. This is taught by Loree as item 177 on item 104.
With respect to claim 20, the references as applied to claim 18, above, disclose all the limitations. The references further disclose wherein the primary storage component and the storage rail each have a length in a longitudinal direction that is approximately equal. This idea can be considered not novel and obvious with regards to Loree. Loree shows items 640 and 595 in figure 15 that extend the length of the wall rail. It would be obvious to have an item extend the length of the wall rail to create an aesthetic appearance.
Examiner Note: Claims 18-20 fail to suggest that there is any relation between the storage rail and primary storage component.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (US 5975660 A) in view of Hoppe (US 11338959 B2) .
With respect to claim 14, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except wherein the plurality of cleats are on an outer surface of the lid extending in a direction away from the storage area, the cleats being configured to couple with a complementary recess of another primary storage component stacked on the lid. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely stackable storage, Hoppe taught of stacking cleats and recesses (160, 170 of Hoppe) to allow for stable stacking of similar containers. This is just an alternate way of stacking similar containers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of stackable containers before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the stacking cleats and recesses as taught by Hoppe for the stacking features as disclosed by Anderson since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, with the difference being the substitution of the elements. In the present case, adding Hoppes cleats and recesses would allow for stacking with the lid and base feature on. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the one known element for the other to produce a predictable result (MPEP 2143).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-20030155729-A1 OR US-20210221563-A1 OR US-20140138332-A1 OR US-20230120916-A1 OR US-20220117393-A1 OR US-20250223076-A1 OR US-20100276241-A1 OR US-20090145866-A1 OR US-20050145147-A1 OR US-20050092704-A1 OR US-5975660-A OR US-4261464-A OR US-12036660-B2 OR US-12179335-B2 OR US-9206827-B2 OR US-5915803-A OR US-10029718-B2 OR US-4936068-A OR US-4490064-A OR US-3896743-A OR US-8104850-B2 OR US-7627983-B1 OR US-6935518-B2 OR US-6102217-A OR US-3698565-AOR US-5906381-A OR US-5397006-A.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the 112b rejection of claim 5, applicant argues that the swinging lock tab is "a locking tab that is capable of swinging movement (e.g., inward to a locked position; outward away from a locked position). However, . These comments do not address the lack of structure shown.
With respect to claim 16, and the term stacking direction, applicant accepts a broad interpretation. However, there cannot be a broad interpretation because the claims do not positively claim wall mounts. The claims only positively claim a secondary container that enters through the open side. It is unclear how this direction is considered parallel with the plurality of recesses.
Applicant believes the amendments overcome the Anderson reference. However, applicants amendments are broad and therefore Anderson can still read on the present invention. For example, the addition of cleats and recesses to the lids are broad. Cleats and recesses can be on the inner surface of the lid or base and meet the claimed limitations, as shown by Anderson.
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