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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/3/2025 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “recess” in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 3, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US 2009/0114646 to Whalen.
Regarding claim 1, Whalen discloses a utility box (100, Fig 1) comprising a top (1), a base (2) pivotally attached to the top along an axis about which the utility box opens, latch catch (41) connected to one of the top (1) or the base (2), a latch cover (25) pivotally connected to the one of the top (1) or base that the latch catch are not connected to (Fig 6), the latch cover (25) comprising a body, a latch member (32), a recess (between 42, 43), a display (24) received within the recess of the latch cover (Fig 5a, the display goes through the latch), display including a substantially flat surface (42), wherein the latch member (32) are positioned on the latch cover to engage the one latch catches (41) and lock the utility box from open to closed position (€0020).
Regarding claim 3, Whalen further discloses top and base each having a pair of opposing ends and opposing sides, the opposing sides being parallel to axis about which the box opens and opposing ends being perpendicular to axis about which the box opens (Fig 1 shows rectangular box).
Regarding claim 9, Whalen further teaches the box comprising a display device (24), the display device comprising a first side (42) comprising a display configured to identify the utility box, a second side (43) opposite the first side and adjacent the latch cover, the second side comprising a stem portion (B, Fig 5a below), wherein the body of the latch cover defines an aperture (A, Fig 5a below) that receives the stem portion of the display device to secure the display device to the latch cover (Fig 5a below).
PNG
media_image1.png
734
334
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whalen.
Regarding claims 4-8, Whalen teaches the box of claim 3 and further teaches the body of the latch cover having a length measured parallel to the axis but does not explicitly teach the length being greater than recited length of the opposing sides of the top or base. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to change the dimensions of the latch relative to the box body as recited in order to optimize opening of the box since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whalen in view of US Patent No. 7,717,256 to Jensen.
Regarding claim 10, Whalen teaches the box of claim 1 but does not teach a rack system that attaches to a surface to secure the utility box. Jensen discloses a box container (Fig 1) and in particular discloses the box container having a rack system (16) that attaches to a surface to secure the box to the surface, the rack system including at least one attachment portion (62) on a sidewall thereof for attachment to a corresponding at least one attachment portion of a second box container. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate a rack system to the Whalen container as suggested by Jensen in order to attach multiple container boxes side by side to form a larger unit. In particular, the surface can be a top or bottom surface of another utility box depending on the structure of the other utility box.
Claim(s) 1, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2006/0186003 to Dost et al. (Dost) in view of US 2013/0127183 to Chang.
Regarding claim 1, Dost discloses a utility box (100, Fig 1) comprising a top (12), a base (14) pivotally attached to the top along an axis about which the utility box opens, latch catch (86) connected to one of the top (12) or the base (14), a latch cover (250, Fig 6) pivotally connected to the one of the top (12) or base (14) that the latch catch are not connected to (Fig 8), the latch cover (250) comprising a body, a latch member (290), display (288) including a substantially flat surface (282), wherein the latch member (290) are positioned on the latch cover to engage the one latch catches (86) and lock the utility box from open to closed position (€0026). Dost does not teach the latch cover comprising a recess with the display received within the recess of the latch cover. However, Chang discloses a utility box (40, Fig 6) and in particular discloses a latch cover (Fig 1) comprising a body (10), latch member (12), a recess (13), a display (20) received within the recess of the latch cover. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate a recess and display within the recess to Dost latch cover as suggested by Chang in order to have decoration on the latch.
Regarding claim 19, Dost further discloses substantially flat surface (282) has a first edge (A, Fig 6 below), second edge (B, Fig 6 below), first edge being longer than second edge, wherein when the box is in closed position, first edge oriented generally parallel to axis and second edge generally perpendicular to axis (Fig 7).
PNG
media_image2.png
338
682
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/4/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Initially, it is noted that applicant does not argue the rejection of the dependent claims. Applicant argues that Whalen does not teach a display received within a recess of the latch cover. This is not persuasive because the sealing means (24) can function as a display and is received within a recess in the latch cover because the sealing means extends through the latch cover to seal opening (21) as shown in Fig 5a. In addition, the sealing means lies flush with the outer surface of the latch cover and thus would reside within a recess within the latch cover. Furthermore, Chang also discloses that it was known in the art to incorporate a recess (13) within a latch cover for receiving a display plate (20).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT POON whose telephone number is (571)270-7425. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8:30 am to 6:00 pm.
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.
/ROBERT POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3735