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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160280415 (hereinafter “McDonald”) in view of US 10660734 (hereinafter “Chapman”) and in further view of US 20060208062 (hereinafter “Osborn”).
Regarding claim 1, McDonald discloses packaging for a tray/drawer (Abstract) that has a rectangular bottom; a longitudinal wall and two side walls, two side walls and one longitudinal wall rise respectively from three sides of the bottom and are perpendicular to the bottom; and
two intermediate walls extending from the accessible side, the walls being disposed at each end of the accessible side (See annotated Figure 4 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
278
301
media_image1.png
Greyscale
McDonald does not disclose two longitudinal walls, one of the longitudinal walls is movably mounted relative to one of the sides of the bottom to be actuated between a high position such that the four walls close the sides of the bottom to form a drawer, and a low position such that one side is accessible, the movable wall in the low position forming a tab to pull the drawer, nor
means for connecting the movable wall, disposed on the intermediate walls to keep the movable wall in contact with the intermediate walls when it is in the high position.
Chapman, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a container that has a longitudinal wall (Fig. 3, 106 – bottom flap) movably mounted to one of the sides of the bottom that can assume a high (closed) (Fig. 2) or low (open) (Fig. 3) position. Additionally, this “bottom flap” can be held shut in the high position magnetically through connecting magnets between two flaps/walls (Col. 3, Lines 34-56). Thus, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide McDonald with a movable wall with connecting means as taught by Chapman to act as a gate to prevent drawer contents from falling out.
McDonald also does not disclose a step extending from the edge of the accessible side such that the bottom comprises a positive level difference from the edge of the accessible side. However, Osborn, in the analogous art of card packaging, discloses cutouts (Fig. 2, 218A and 218B) at a lower level than a bottom recess that “enable the card owner to slip a finger beneath one end of the card” for removal (Para. 0026). Thus, it would be obvious to a person skilled in the art to provide McDonald with some kind of cutout or step into the bottom of a card container as taught by McDonald for easier removal or finger access.
Regarding claim 2, modified McDonald discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses that connecting means also form means for returning the movable wall to bring it back to the high position (Chapman, Fig. 2) when it starts to be raised (Chapman, Col. 3, Lines 34-56). Attraction between opposite magnets of the walls would draw the movable wall back up to the high position. Reasons for combination of this prior art is as stated supra.
Regarding claim 3, modified McDonald discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses that the means for returning and/or connecting the movable wall are constituted by complementary magnetized parts disposed on the intermediate walls (McDonald, see annotated Figure above) and the movable wall (Chapman, Fig. 3, 106), the movable wall being able to be attracted towards its high position when it is raised, the magnets forming connecting and return means (Chapman, Col. 3, Lines 34-56). Reasons for combination of this prior art is as stated supra.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDonald in view of Chapman and Osborn as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20040207298 (hereinafter “Rodon”).
Regarding claim 4, while modified McDonald discloses all the limitations of claim 1, it does not disclose having an enclosure of a game box comprising a first storage space comprising a rectangular bottom and four walls extending from each side, the enclosure comprising a second storage space contiguous to the first storage space and comprising a stack of at least one compartment comprising a rack according to claim 1. Rodon, in an analogous art of compartment containers, discloses a storage unit that encloses a first storage space (Fig. 5a, 52) with a rectangular bottom and four walls (Fig. 5A, annotated below 1 ,2, 3, 4). It also discloses an adjacent second storage space that has more compartments in a stacked formation (Fig. 5A, 50, Para. 0041). Thus, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the modified McDonald with an enclosure to form multiple compartments as taught by Rodon to allow more areas to categorize/store items. It is known to use modular storage systems with more compartments with different sized compartments to assist with storing items into different categories or sizes.
PNG
media_image2.png
714
816
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, modified McDonald further discloses that the second storage space comprises at least one movable wall (Rodon, Fig. 5a, 3 - door) between a high position (shown in Rodon, Fig. 1) and a low position (shown in Rodon, Fig. 5a) configured, when actuated, to open access to the second storage space. Rationale for using the prior art is as stated supra.
Regarding claim 6, modified McDonald discloses all limitations of claim 4, and further discloses a box (Chapman, Fig. 3, 100) with a lid (Chapman, Fig. 3, 108 – top side). The addition of a lid component to a box is well-known as taught by Chapman and would yield predictable results of covering a box for protecting items, thus being obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDonald in view of Chapman, Osborn, and Rodon as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of KR 102167656 (hereinafter “Park”).
Regarding claim 7, while modified McDonald discloses a lid, it does not specify that the lid has a central part and side parts connected to the central part, the side parts comprising bend lines allowing the side portions to be raised in order to delimit a game area of a game board. Park discloses a lid that has a central part and side parts with bend lines (see annotated Fig. 6 below). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the modified McDonald with a lid having multiple, bendable sections of a lid as taught by Park to provide an enclosure that covers all available openings to protect items that are to be stored.
PNG
media_image3.png
221
396
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, modified McDonald discloses all limitations of claim 6, and further discloses a lid (Chapman, Fig. 3, 108 – top side) that has magnets (Chapman, Col. 3, Lines 34-56), that are complementary with another structural component, such as a wall (Chapman, Fig. 3, 106), of the box/enclosure. Chapman does not specifically disclose that the magnets are knobs; however, Park discloses a container with female and male knob shapes (annotated in Fig. 6 below). Thus, it would be obvious to provide the modified McDonald with magnets being complementary magnetized knobs as taught by Park to more securely, mechanically fasten a lid. Finally, this addition of magnetized knobs to a lid (key structural component in the art), complementary to an enclosure (general container) would be obvious to try and yield predictable results as this is a known connecting structure.
PNG
media_image4.png
220
396
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMANTHA M BERRY whose telephone number is (571)272-0925. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5.
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, Eugene Kim can be reached at (571) 272-4463. 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.
/S.M.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3711 /EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711