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
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, 23, 25-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US Patent No. 8,297,464 to Grenier et al. (Grenier).
Regarding claim 1, Grenier discloses a utility box comprising a top (14), a base (12) pivotally attached to the top (14) along an axis about which the box opens, a latch catch (28) connected to the base, a latch cover (16) pivotally connected to the top (14), the latch cover configured to lock the top of the box in engagement with the base (12) in closed position (Fig 6), the cover comprising a body configured to engage the top (14) when the cover is in closed position, a latch member positioned on the body, the latch member (36) configured to engage the latch catch (28) when the cover is in closed position, a recess (58) defined in the body, a display (38) received within the recess of the latch cover, wherein the latch cover (16) is movable from closed position (Fig 6) to open position (Fig 9) via two stages of operation including a first stage (Fig 8) in which body is configured to pivot away from and disengage the top (14) and a second stage (Fig 9) in which latch member (36) is configured to disengage the latch catch (28) after the first stage (Fig 8).
PNG
media_image1.png
673
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Grenier 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, Grenier further teaches the box comprising a display device (38), the display device comprising a first side (92) comprising a display (101) configured to identify the utility box, a second side (94) opposite the first side and adjacent the latch cover, the second side comprising a stem portion (106), wherein the body of the latch cover defines an aperture (A, Fig 3 below) that receives the stem portion of the display device to secure the display device to the latch cover (Fig 4).
Regarding claim 23, Grenier further discloses body including a first end portion (106) and second end portion (120) opposite the first, wherein the first end portion (16) is configured to engage the top (at 32) when the latch cover is in closed position (Fig 6), wherein the latch member (36) is positioned proximate the second end portion (120).
Regarding claim 25, Grenier further discloses top (14) and base (12) remain engaged during first and second stage of latch cover (Figs 6-9).
Regarding claim 26, Grenier discloses a utility box (Fig 1) comprising a first shell member (12), a second shell member (14) pivotally attached to the first shell member along an axis about which the utility box opens, wherein one of the first shell member and second shell member is a top of the utility box and another one of the first shell member and second shell member is a base of the utility box (Fig 1), a latch catch (28) connected to the first shell member (12), a latch cover (16) pivotally connected to second shell member (14) and configured to engage the second shell member (14) in closed position, the latch cover (16) comprising a latch member (36) configured to engage the latch catch when the cover is in closed position (Fig 6), the latch cover is movable from closed position to first open position in which the cover is configured to pivot away from and disengage the second shell member while the latch member remains engaged with the latch catch (Fig 8).
Regarding claim 27, Grenier further discloses latch cover (16) configured to move from closed position (Fig 6) to first open position (Fig 8) via a first stage of operation, the latch cover is configured to move from first open position (Fig 8) to second open position (Fig 9) via a second stage of operation after first stage of operation, wherein the latch member (36) is configured to disengage the latch catch (28) during second stage of operation (Fig 9).
Regarding claim 28, Grenier further discloses first shell member (12) and second shell member (14) remain engaged during first stage of operation (Fig 8) and second stage of operation of latch cover (Fig 9).
Regarding claim 29, Grenier further discloses first shell member (12) and second shell member (14) remain locked in engagement via the engagement between latch member (36) and latch catch (28) when latch cover (16) is in first open position (Fig 8).
Regarding claim 30, Grenier further discloses latch cover (16) further comprises a latch cover surface (40), a recess (58) defined in the latch cover surface, a display (38) received within the recess.
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 Grenier.
Regarding claims 4-8, Grenier 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 Grenier in view of US Patent No. 7,717,256 to Jensen.
Regarding claim 10, Grenier 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 Grenier 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) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grenier in view of US 2006/0186003 to Dost et al. (Dost).
Regarding claim 19, Grenier discloses the box of claim 1 and further discloses display including a substantially flat surface (92) with a first and second edge but does not teach the first edge being longer than second edge when latch cover is closed position and first edge oriented generally parallel to axis and second edge oriented generally perpendicular to axis. However, Dost discloses a utility box and in particular discloses a latch (Fig 6 below) comprising a display with a substantially flat surface with first (A, Fig 6 below) and second edge (B, Fig 6 below) and the first edge being longer than second edge. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to change the dimensions of the Grenier latch such that first edge was longer than second edge as suggested by Dost in order to facilitate griping of the latch.
PNG
media_image2.png
338
682
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-10, 19, 21-30 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 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
Prosecution Insights