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 § 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 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 6,021,902) in view of Giraudet (US 3,527,373) and Sheppard (US1,286,810) further in view of Awad (US 2022/0324612) and Brodsky (US 2021/0292074).
Regarding claim 11, Wu (figs. 1-4) discloses a multiple container system comprising a first container and a second container, each comprising:
a first container wall;
a second container wall configured perpendicular to the first container wall;
a third container wall configured parallel to the first container wall;
a fourth container wall configured perpendicular to the first container wall;
a container top;
rails 23 configured at the container top and extending along the first container wall, and third container wall, the rails each having a rail recess and a rail overhang;
a container bottom configured opposite the container top;
a container length extending from the second container wall to the fourth container wall;
compartments 21 configured within the container, wherein the compartments are configured linearly along the container length;
compartment walls configured parallel to the second container wall and fourth container wall, the number of compartment walls being 1 less than the number of compartments;
a protruding portion 210 protruding from a container wall at the container top
a lid 1 comprising: a lid top; a lid bottom configured opposite the lid top; a ball detent receiver 15 configured at the lid bottom, the ball detent receiver 15 comprising divots configured linearly, the number of divots being 1 greater than the number of compartments; and a ball detent receiver open end, wherein the lid is received by the rail recesses of at least two of the rails, whereby the lid slides along the container length parallel to the container bottom, wherein the protruding portion 210 is received into the ball detent receiver 15 by the ball detent receiver open end,
wherein the protruding portion 210 enters at least one divot, whereby the lid stops sliding along the container length unless an additional force is applied to the lid, whereby at least one of the compartments is exposed via the container top, wherein multiple compartments are exposed as the lid continues to slide along the container length.
Wu fails to disclose:
the rails 23 discussed above configured at the container top and extending along the second container wall;
the protruding portion 210 discussed above being a ball detent configured within the fourth container wall, the ball detent comprising:
a ball detent recess;
a spring configured within the ball detent recess;
a ball comprising:
a protruding ball portion protruding from the fourth container wall at the container top;
a recessed ball portion configured inside the ball detent recess;
the ball detent receiver discussed above comprising: a channel;
wherein the protruding ball portion is configured within the channel as the lid slides along the container length; and
wherein the third wall of first container has at least one hole and at least one magnet, wherein the first wall of the second container has at least one peg and at least one magnet, wherein the at least one peg of the second container mates with the at least one hole of the first container, wherein the at least one magnet of the second container mates with the at least one magnet of the first container, whereby the first container is removably connected to the second container whereby the lid of the first container and the lid of the second container face the same direction.
However, Giraudet teaches a container having rails 9 configured at the container top and extending along a first, second and third container wall (fig.11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have provided rails on three sides of the container of Wu, as taught by Giraudet, to improve lid retention and prevent unintended removal of the sliding lid.
Further Sheppard teaches a ball detent comprising:
a ball detent recess;
a spring 9 configured within the ball detent recess;
a ball 10 comprising:
a protruding ball portion;
a recessed ball portion configured inside the ball detent recess;
a channel 6;
wherein the protruding ball portion is configured within the channel as an outer sleeve slides along a container length.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary sill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have made the protruding portion of the modified Wu, a spring biased ball, as taught by Sheppard, to automatically urge the ball into the recess for reliable engagement.
Regarding the location of the channel and the ball detent, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Further, Awad teaches containers being attached by a combination of magnets, protrusions and depressions (figs. 7 and 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have provided the modified device of Wu, a combination of magnets and protrusions and depressions, as taught by Awad, so that multiple containers can securely but releasably couple together for modular storage and easy handling.
Regarding the claimed at least one peg and hole, Brodsky teaches two containers being attached by pegs 71and holes 72 (fig. 18).
It would have further been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to substitute the protrusions and depressions of the modified Wu with pegs and holes, as taught by Brodsky, because both are known alternatives for releasably attaching components and the substitution yields predictable results.
Regarding claims 12-14, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to attach the two containers using the claimed numbers of magnets, holes and pegs, by simply duplicating the magnets, holes and pegs already used, in order to increase holding strength, improve strength, improve stability and provide more uniform attachment between the containers. Such duplication represents a routine design choice. It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to rearrange the placement of the magnets and the pegs and holes, as a matter of routine optimization and design choice, in order to achieve proper alignment, balanced attachment forces and interference-free assembly. The specific arrangement represents a predictable variation of known fastening elements selected to fit the container geometry and does not produce any unexpected result.
Regarding claims 15-17, the Brodsky further teaches a third and fourth containers connectable to each other and first and second containers (figs. 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed, to provide additional attachment mechanisms on the opposite side of the containers of the modified Wu, and provided four or more containers, as further taught by Brodsky, in order to allow multiple containers to be attached together, as such a modification is predictable use of a known fastening mechanism to extend its functionality.
Regarding claims 18-19, Wu further discloses the first container and the second container both comprise a track pad 13 configured at the lid top, wherein the track pad has a coefficient of friction that is greater than corresponding coefficients of friction of the other portions of the container (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Wu further discloses in each the first container, the second container, the third container, and the fourth container, the ball detent receiver comprises a last divot configured at an opposite end of the ball detent receiver than the ball detent receiver open end, wherein when the lid slides along the container length whereby the protruding ball portion enters the last divot, the lid is configured in a closed position (fig. 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the Kendra 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