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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/14/2025 has been entered.
Claim 1, 5, and 19 were amended, claim 11 was canceled. Claims 1-10 and 12-20 are pending.
Drawings
No amended figures were received in the reply filed 4/14/2026. These drawings remain unacceptable for the same reasoning from the rejection filed 1/2/2026:
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 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 is 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 “rotating locking tab” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “rotating 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 rotating locking tab? The drawings and specification fail to further elaborate on this feature. How can the connector "rotate"? From drawings, it looks like this feature is static. If this really can rotate, what is the structure enabling the rotating function? How is it considered both “rotating” and “locking”? Arrows are shown on the drawings; however, the structure is missing. From an internet search with the term “swinging locking tab” and “rotating locking tab”, no structure shows that could be incorporated on the claimed product. These features are not common enough to be stated without showing or further description of the structure.
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) 1-5 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tisbo (US 5975660 A) in view of Camp (US 20230122425 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Tisbo 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; 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.
Tisbo failed to disclose of a plurality of cleats formed on an upper surface of the lid and a plurality of recesses formed in a lower surface of the base. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely containers, Camp taught of a container with a plurality of cleats (protrusions adjacent 156) and recesses (space between 160, figure 17B). These cleats and recesses enable stacking (abstract and figure 3) of each container. 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 top of Tisbo to include cleats and bottom to include recesses to enable stacking as taught by Camp in order to allow for secure stacking of containers.
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, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Tisbo further discloses 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, the references as applied to claim 2, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Tisbo further discloses wherein the connector is (42, 44,etc) configured for ambidextrous installation.
With respect to claim 4, the references as applied to claim 2, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Tisbo further discloses wherein the connector (42, 44,etc) extends from the base (12) to the lid (24).
With respect to claim 5, the references as applied to claim 2, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Tisbo further discloses wherein the connector (42, 44,etc) forms a rotating locking tab configured to lock the adjacent sidewalls of the body to each other. (See 112 above, Tisbo connector presently could rotate)
With respect to claim 15, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references further teach wherein the plurality of recesses (taught by Camp reference) extend in a direction towards the storage area, the recesses being configured to receive a complementary cleat. As taught by Camp reference, see claim 1 rejection, above, for combination rationale.
With respect to claim 16, the references as applied to claim 15, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references further teach 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). As taught by Camp reference, see claim 1 rejection, above, for combination rationale.
With respect to claim 17, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Tisbo further discloses 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(s) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tisbo (US 5975660 A) in view of Camp (US 20230122425 A1) and 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 Tisbo and Camp 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 Tisbo (US 5975660 A) in view of Camp (US 20230122425 A1) and 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 Tisbo 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 Tisbo 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 Tisbo 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 Camp reference, see claim 1 combination rationale. Can consider each overhang material (156d) on item as a cleat. This can also be taught by the configurations in figures 81a and 81b (recess within 440, cleats being 450) of Camp or figures 84A-84B, 91C, 92C.
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 Tisbo (US 5975660 A) in view of Camp (US 20230122425 A1) and 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 Tisbo 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).
Response to Arguments
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.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 4/14/2026, with respect to previous 112a new matter rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112a rejection of 1/2/2026 has been withdrawn.
It appears that the applicant attempted to submit Drawing replacements. However, no amended drawings were received in the response filed 4/14/2026.
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.
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