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 .
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-15, 21-22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Robbins (US 2013/0140211).
Regarding claim 1, Robbins (figs. 1-4) discloses a container, comprising a base 10, including: a bottom 32, a sidewall 12 surrounding the bottom 34 and extending vertically upward therefrom, wherein the sidewall 12 includes:
an adjustable wall with an over-toggle-mechanism having a diaphragm 18 and configured to selectively deflect between an extended state and a retracted state, wherein the adjustable wall in the extended state is biased toward the extended state, and wherein the adjustable wall in the retracted state is biased toward the retracted state,
an upper sidewall portion 16,
a lower sidewall portion 14, wherein the diaphragm 18 extends between the upper and lower sidewall portions 16 and 14,wherein the diaphragm 18 biases the upper sidewall portion 16 away from the lower sidewall portion 14 in the extended state, and wherein the diaphragm 18 biases the upper sidewall portion 16 toward the lower sidewall portion 14 in the retracted state, and
a base chamber at least partially defined by the bottom 32 and the sidewall 12, wherein the base chamber has a greater storage volume with the adjustable wall in the extended state,
wherein the base chamber has a lesser storage volume with the adjustable wall in the retracted state,
wherein the diaphragm 18 surrounds the base chamber in the extended state, and wherein the diaphragm 18 is horizontally positioned between the upper and lower sidewall portions 16 and 14 in the retracted state such that diaphragm 18 is spaced from each of the upper and lower sidewall portions 16 and 14 in the retracted state.
Regarding claim 2, Robbins further discloses the base further including a base peripheral frame 46 such that the sidewall 12 vertically extends between the base peripheral frame 46 and the bottom 32 (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Robbins further discloses the adjustable wall surrounding the base chamber (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Robbins further discloses the adjustable wall configured to vertically deflect between the extended and retracted states (figs. 1 and 4).
Regarding claim 5, Robbins further discloses the over-toggle-mechanism includes an over-center- toggle point state between the extended state and the retracted state, wherein the adjustable wall on a first side of the over-center-toggle point state is biased toward the extended state, and wherein the adjustable wall on a second side of the over-center-toggle point state is biased toward the retracted state (figs. 1 and 4)
Regarding claim 7, Robbins further discloses the over-toggle-mechanism further includes an upper hinge 38 on the upper sidewall portion 16 and a lower hinge 40 on the lower sidewall portion 14, wherein the diaphragm 18 is pivotally connected to each of the upper and lower hinges and extends therebetween (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Robbins further discloses the upper hinge 38, the lower hinge 40, the upper sidewall portion 16, the lower sidewall portion 14, and the diaphragm 18 are of single, unitary construction (figs. 1 and 4).
Regarding claim 9, Robbins further discloses the diaphragm 18 has an outer diaphragm surface opposite the base chamber, wherein the outer diaphragm surface is concave in the extended state, and wherein the outer diaphragm surface is convex in the retracted state (figs.1 and 4).
Regarding claim 10, Robbins further discloses the bottom 32 and the sidewall 12 are of a single, unitary construction (figs. 1 and 4).
Regarding claim 11, Robbins further discloses the single, unitary construction of the bottom and the sidewall is plastics not silicone (paragraph 0005).
Regarding claim 13, Robbins further discloses a lid 48 and a lid securement, wherein the lid securement is configured to releasably connect the lid 48 to the base (figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 14, Robbins further discloses the lid 48 and the base 10 define a storage space therebetween, wherein the storage space with the adjustable wall in the extended state has a larger volume than the storage space with the adjustable wall in the retracted state (figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 15, Robbins further discloses the base 10 includes a base peripheral frame 24 projecting vertically upward from the sidewall and surrounding the base chamber such that the base chamber is horizontally inward from the base peripheral frame 24, and further comprising an inner securement including a base securement portion 46 positioned on the base 10, wherein the base securement portion 46 is horizontally inward of the base peripheral frame 24 and configured to releasably connect to the lid (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 21, Robbins further discloses the upper hinge 38 being vertically positioned higher than the lower hinge 40 in the extended state, and wherein the upper hinge 38 is vertically positioned lower than the lower hinge 40 in the retracted state (figs. 1 and 4).
Regarding claim 22, Robbins further discloses the upper hinge 38 being an upper living hinge, and wherein the lower hinge 40 being a lower living hinge (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 24, Robbins (figs. 1-4) discloses a container, comprising a base, including: a bottom 32, a sidewall 12 surrounding the bottom 32 and extending vertically upward therefrom, wherein the sidewall includes:
an adjustable wall with an over-toggle-mechanism having a diaphragm 18 and configured to selectively deflect between an extended state and a retracted state, wherein the adjustable wall in the extended state is biased toward the extended state, and wherein the adjustable wall in the retracted state is biased toward the retracted state,
an upper sidewall portion 16,
a lower sidewall portion 14,
wherein the diaphragm extends between the upper and lower sidewall portions 16 and 14, wherein the diaphragm biases the upper sidewall portion away from the lower sidewall portion in the extended state, and wherein the diaphragm biases the upper sidewall portion toward the lower sidewall portion in the retracted state, and
a base chamber at least partially defined by the bottom 32 and the sidewall 12, wherein the base chamber has a greater storage volume with the adjustable wall in the extended state, wherein the base chamber has a lesser storage volume with the adjustable wall in the retracted state, wherein the diaphragm 18 surrounds the base chamber in the extended state, and wherein the diaphragm 18 is horizontally positioned between the upper and lower sidewall portions 16 and 14 in the retracted state such that diaphragm 18 is spaced from each of the upper and lower sidewall portions in the retracted state.
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.
Claims 12, 23 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robbins (US 2013/0140211) in view of Hupp (US 6,315,151).
Regarding claim 12, Robbins discloses all elements of the claimed invention as applied to claim 11 above, but fails to disclose the plastics being polypropylene.
However, Hupp teaches a collapsible container made of polypropylene (col. 5, lines 19-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have made the plastics of Robbins, polypropylene, as taught by Hupp since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 23, Robbins discloses all elements of the claimed invention as applied to claim 7 above, but fails to disclose the sidewall further includes a plurality of corner sidewall portions, wherein the over-toggle-mechanism further includes a plurality of chamfered corners respectively positioned above the lower hinge at each of the plurality of corner sidewall portions, and wherein the plurality of chamfered corners is respectively configured to increase rigidity of the plurality of corner sidewall portions and inhibit collapsing of the sidewall while selectively deflecting the diaphragm from the extended state toward the retracted state.
However, Hupp teaches a rectangular collapsible container having chamfered corners 32 positioned above a hinge line 30 (fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to having made the container of Robbins a rectangular container with chambered corners above the hinge lines, to assist in the smooth, consistent and controlled collapsing and erection of the container as taught by Hupp in col. 9, lines 40-43. Also, change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 25, Robbins further discloses:
the over-toggle-mechanism further including an upper hinge 38 on the upper sidewall portion and a lower hinge 40 on the lower sidewall portion,
wherein the diaphragm 18 is pivotally connected to each of the upper and lower hinges and extends therebetween (fig. 1).
However, Robbins fails to disclose:
the sidewall further including a plurality of corner sidewall portions,
wherein the over-toggle-mechanism further includes a plurality of chamfered corners respectively positioned above the lower hinge at each of the plurality of corner sidewall portions, and wherein the plurality of chamfered corners is respectively configured to increase rigidity of the plurality of corner sidewall portions and inhibit collapsing of the sidewall while selectively deflecting the diaphragm from the extended state toward the retracted state.
However, Hupp teaches a rectangular collapsible container having chamfered corners 32 positioned above a hinge line 30 (fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to having made the container of Robbins a rectangular container with chambered corners above the hinge lines, to assist in the smooth, consistent and controlled collapsing and erection of the container as taught by Hupp in col. 9, lines 40-43. Also, change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 26, Robbins (figs. 1-4) discloses a container 10, comprising a base, including: a bottom 32, a sidewall 12 surrounding the bottom 32 and extending vertically upward therefrom, wherein the sidewall includes:
an upper sidewall portion 16,
a lower sidewall portion 14,
an adjustable wall with an over-toggle-mechanism having an upper hinge 38 on the upper sidewall portion, a lower hinge 40 on the lower sidewall portion, a diaphragm 18 pivotally connected to each of the upper and lower hinges and extending therebetween, wherein the diaphragm 18 is configured to selectively deflect between an extended state and a retracted state, wherein the adjustable wall in the extended state is biased toward the extended state, and wherein the adjustable wall in the retracted state is biased toward the retracted state, wherein the diaphragm 18 extends between the upper and lower sidewall portions, wherein the diaphragm 18 biases the upper sidewall portion away from the lower sidewall portion in the extended state, and wherein the diaphragm 18 biases the upper sidewall portion toward the lower sidewall portion in the retracted state,
a base chamber at least partially defined by the bottom 32 and the sidewall 12, wherein the base chamber has a greater storage volume with the adjustable wall in the extended state, and wherein the base chamber has a lesser storage volume with the adjustable wall in the retracted state.
Robbins fails to disclose:
the sidewall 12 including a plurality of corner sidewall portions,
the adjustable wall having a plurality of chamfered corners,
wherein the plurality of chamfered corners is respectively positioned above the lower hinge at each of the plurality of corner sidewall portions, and wherein the plurality of chamfered corners is respectively configured to increase rigidity of the plurality of corner sidewall portions and inhibit collapsing of the sidewall while selectively deflecting the diaphragm from the extended state toward the retracted state.
However, Hupp teaches a rectangular collapsible container having chamfered corners 32 positioned above a hinge line 30 (fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to having made the container of Robbins a rectangular container with chambered corners above the hinge lines, to assist in the smooth, consistent and controlled collapsing and erection of the container as taught by Hupp in col. 9, lines 40-43. Also, change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 BLAINE GIRMA NEWAY whose telephone number is (571)270-5275. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM- 5:00PM.
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 at 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.
/BLAINE G NEWAY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/Anthony D Stashick/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights