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 Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: it is not known if the “self-spacing stacking device” is the same as “upwardly protruding stacking device”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 13 recites the limitation "the reinforcement plate" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 3 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cloyd (US 3,438,544).
Regarding claim 1, Cloyd (figs. 1-3 and 5) discloses a self-spacing stacking bin for receiving, storing or shipping goods, products or debris, comprising:
a horizontally-oriented bottom portion 1 of a bin; and
at least one support island 27 defined in said bottom portion by a first pair of fork ports 23, 24 and a second pair of fork ports 25, 26 orthogonal to the first pair of fork ports 23, 24 such that no portion of any support island 27 extends to any side wall of the bin; and
at least one generally upwardly protruding stacking device 39 which rises above any other vertical features of the bottom portion 1 such that, when a second bin of similar shape and construction to a first bin is received into the first bin, a bottom portion of the second bin will contact and rest upon the at least one self-spacing stacking device.
Regarding claim 3, Cloyd further discloses at least part of the stacking device 39 extends from the support island 27 (figs. 1 and 5).
Regarding claim 6, Cloyd further discloses the at least one stacking device consists of four upwardly protruding stacking devices 35, 36, 39, 40 (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Cloyd (figs. 1-3 and 5) discloses a method of manufacturing a bin for receiving, storing or shipping goods, products or debris, the method comprising forming a sheet of material to yield bottom portion 1 of a bin , wherein the bottom portion 1 is horizontally-oriented, wherein the forming comprises forming at least one support island 27 defined in said bottom portion 1 by a first pair of fork ports 23, 24 and a second pair of fork ports 25, 26 orthogonal to the first pair of fork ports 23, 24 such that no portion of any support island 27 extends to any side wall of the bin, and wherein the forming further comprises providing at least one generally upwardly protruding stacking device 39 which rises above any other vertical features of the bottom portion 1 such that, when a second bin of similar shape and construction to a first bin is received into the first bin, a bottom portion 1 of the second bin will contact and rest upon the at least one generally upwardly protruding stacking device 39.
Regarding claim 8, Cloyd further discloses the sheet material comprises a plastic sheet material (col. 1, lines 49-52).
Regarding claim 9, Cloyd further discloses the sheet material includes a metal sheet material 22 (col. 2, lines 19-26).
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 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cloyd (US 3,438,544) in view of Schafer (US 5,397,022).
Regarding claim 4, Cloyd discloses all elements of the claimed invention except for a reinforcement plate affixed to the support island to strengthen the bottom portion from sagging under load, wherein the reinforcement plate comprises a support island receiver which receives, captures and is fastened to the at least one support island.
However, Schafer teaches a reinforcement plate or flat webs 8 affixed to the bottom of a container and supported on protruding ribs (figs. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have provided the bottom of the device of Cloyd, a reinforcement plate, as taught by Schafer to provide a bottom that can easily be replaced when damaged.
Regarding claim 5, the modified Cloyd further discloses the
reinforcement plate (of Schafer) being further affixed to at least two edges of the bottom portion or to at least two wall portions of the bin, thereby transmitting force of weight of bin contents positioned the middle of the bottom portion through the at least one support island, to the reinforcement plate, and distributes some of the force to a periphery of the bottom portion capable of reducing sag of the bottom portion and retain a rectangular shape of the bottom portion (fig. 1 of Schafer).
Claims 10-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cloyd (US 3,438,544) in view of Krohn (US 7,882,973).
Regarding claim10, Cloyd discloses all elements of the claimed invention except for the sheet material comprises a fiberglass sheet material.
However, Krohn teaches a container made of either metal, plastic or fiberglass sheet (col. 5, lines 19-21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have made the sheet material of Cloyd, fiberglass, as taught by Krohn, 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 11, Cloyd further discloses at least part of the stacking device 39 is formed to extend from the support island 27 (figs. 1 and 5).
Regarding claim 14, Cloyd further discloses the at least one stacking
device consists of four upwardly protruding stacking devices35, 36, 39, 40 (figs. 1-3 and 5).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cloyd (US 3,438,544) in view of Krohn (US 7,882,973) as applied to claim 10 above further in view of Schafer (US 5,397,022).
Regarding claims 12-13, the modified Cloyd discloses all elements of the claimed invention except for attaching a reinforcement plate to the support island to strengthen the bottom portion from sagging under load, wherein the reinforcement plate comprises a support island receiver which receives, captures and is fastened to the at least one support island; or
affixing a reinforcement plate to at least two edges of the bottom portion or to at least two wall portions of the bin, thereby providing a structure which transmits force of weight of bin contents positioned the middle of the bottom portion through the at least one support island, to the reinforcement plate, and distributes some of the force to a periphery of the bottom portion capable of reducing sag of the bottom portion and retain a rectangular shape of the bottom portion.
However, Schafer teaches a reinforcement plate or flat webs 8 affixed to the bottom of a container and supported on protruding ribs (figs. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have provided the bottom of the modified device of Cloyd, a reinforcement plate, as taught by Schafer to provide a bottom that can easily be replaced when damaged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments 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