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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant should note that the large number of references in the attached IDS(s) have been considered by the examiner in the same manner as other documents in Office search files are considered by the examiner while conducting a search of the prior art in a proper field of search. See MPEP 609.05(b). It is respectfully requested that applicant point out any particular reference(s) in the IDS that they believe may be of particular relevance to the instant claimed invention in response to this 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dumoulin (US 5,373,708) in view of Yang (US 10,858,160).
Regarding claim 1, Dumoulin (figs. 1-2) discloses a container, comprising:
a base 12 including: a sidewall structure having a first side, a second side opposite the first side, a third side between the first side and the second side, and a fourth side opposite the third side, the sidewall structure having a first end and a second end; a bottom portion connected to a first end of the sidewall structure; an opening formed at the second end of the sidewall structure, opposite the first end, the opening being configured to allow access to an interior void of the container formed by the sidewall structure and the bottom portion; a latch 16; and
a lid 14 pivotally connected to the base 12 by a hinge, the lid having an open configuration and a closed configuration, the lid configured to cover the opening formed at the second end of the sidewall structure when the container is in the closed configuration.
Dumoulin fails to disclose the latch 16 including:
a first latch keeper extending from the first side of the sidewall structure, wherein the first latch keeper forms a pocket;
a first ramped surface adjacent a first end of the first latch keeper, wherein the first ramped surface is angled downward from an interface surface of the base; and
a first latch assembly having a locked position and an unlocked position, wherein the first latch assembly comprises a locking member with a hook portion;
wherein the pocket receives the hook portion of the locking member when the first latch assembly is in the locked position; and
wherein when the lid is being moved to a closed position from an open position, the first ramped surface pushes the first latch assembly away from the base.
However, Yang teaches a combination of a container and a lid with a latch comprising:
a first latch keeper A (figs. 2 and 4) extending from the first side of the sidewall structure, wherein the first latch keeper forms a pocket 11; a first ramped surface 521 adjacent a first end of the first latch keeper A wherein the first ramped surface 521 is angled downward from an interface surface of the base; and
a first latch assembly 4 having a locked position and an unlocked position, wherein the first latch assembly 4 comprises a locking member 71 with a hook portion 714; wherein the pocket 11 receives the hook portion 714 of the locking member 71 when the first latch assembly 4 is in the locked position; and wherein when the lid is being moved to a closed position from an open position, the first ramped surface 521 pushes the first latch assembly away from the base (figs. 2-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to employ a known snap-lock latch design, such as that shown in Yang, to achieve secure engagement. Latch designs with ramped surfaces and complementary engagement features were well-known alternatives in the field, as taught by Yang, and substituting one conventional latch for another to improve reliability would have been a routine design choice.
Regarding claims 2-3, Yang further teaches the first ramped surface 521 being angled downward from the interface surface of the base at an angle within a range of 30 degrees and 60 degrees (figs. 2-4).
Regarding claim 4, Yang further teaches the latch comprising a second ramped surface 521 adjacent a second end of the first latch keeper, wherein the second end of the first latch keeper is opposite the first end of the first latch keeper A (fig. 4).
Regarding claims 5-8, the modified Dumoulin fails to disclose:
a second latch keeper arranged on the third side of the sidewall structure, and a third ramped surface adjacent an end of the second latch keeper, wherein the third ramped surface is angled downward from the interface surface of the base;
wherein the third ramped surface extends outward beyond a front surface of the second latch keeper; or
wherein the third ramped surface extends outward and downward from the second latch keeper; or
wherein the container includes a second latch assembly having a locked position and an unlocked position, wherein the second latch assembly engages the second latch keeper when the second latch assembly is in the locked position.
While, Yang teaches two latches on one side of the container, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to place latches on multiple sides to improve overall closure security, as distributing latches around a container is a routine design choice. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 9, Dumoulin further discloses a pair of wheel assemblies, wherein each wheel assembly of the pair of wheel assemblies comprises a wheel housing 34 and a wheel 15 (fig. 3). Regarding the wheel being mounted to the wheel housing prior to the wheel assembly being secured to the base, the determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art.
Regarding claim 10, Dumouline further discloses each wheel assembly of the pair of wheel assemblies is secured into a wheel recess 22 on the base using a mechanical fastener 36, 42 (figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 11, Dumouline (figs. 1-3) discloses a container, comprising:
a base 12 including: a sidewall structure having a first side, a second side opposite the first side, a third side between the first side and the second side, and a fourth side opposite the third side, the sidewall structure having a first end and a second end; a bottom portion connected to a first end of the sidewall structure; an opening formed at the second end of the sidewall structure, opposite the first end, the opening being configured to allow access to an interior void of the container formed by the sidewall structure and the bottom portion; a pair of wheel assemblies 18, 34, wherein each wheel assembly of the pair of wheel assemblies comprises a wheel housing 34 and a wheel 18; a pull handle 90 having an extended configuration and a nested configuration; and a latch 16; and
a lid 14 having an open configuration and a closed configuration, the lid configured to cover the opening formed at the second end of the sidewall structure when the container is in the closed configuration.
Dumouline fails to disclose:
the wheel is mounted to the wheel housing prior to the wheel assembly being secured to the base;
a first latch keeper extending from the sidewall structure, wherein the first latch keeper forms a pocket; a first ramped surface adjacent a first end of the first latch keeper, wherein the first ramped surface is angled downward from an interface surface of the base; a second ramped surface adjacent a second end of the first latch keeper, wherein the second ramped surface is angled downward from the interface surface of the base, and wherein the second end of the first latch keeper is opposite the first end of the first latch keeper; and
a first latch assembly having a locked position and an unlocked position, wherein the first latch comprises a locking member with a hook portion, wherein the pocket receives the hook portion of the locking member when the first latch assembly is in the locked position.
However, Yang teaches a combination of a container and a lid with a latch comprising:
a first latch keeper A extending from the first side of the sidewall structure, wherein the first latch keeper forms a pocket 11; a first ramped surface 521 adjacent a first end of the first latch keeper A wherein the first ramped surface 521 is angled downward from an interface surface of the base; and
a first latch assembly 4 having a locked position and an unlocked position, wherein the first latch assembly 4 comprises a locking member 71 with a hook portion 714, wherein the pocket 11 receives the hook portion 714 of the locking member 71 when the first latch assembly is in the locked position; and wherein when the lid is being moved to a closed position from an open position, the first ramped surface pushes the first latch assembly away from the base (figs. 2-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to employ a known snap-lock latch design, such as that shown in Yang, to achieve secure engagement. Latch designs with ramped surfaces and complementary engagement features were well-known alternatives in the field, as taught by Yang, and substituting one conventional latch for another to improve reliability would have been a routine design choice.
Regarding the wheel being mounted to the wheel housing prior to the wheel assembly being secured to the base, the determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art.
Regarding claim 12, Yang further teaches the first ramped surface 521 being angled downward from the interface surface of the base at an angle within a range of 20 degrees and 80 degrees (figs. 2-4).
Regarding claims 13-15, the modified Dumouline fails to disclose:
a second latch keeper is located on an adjacent side of the sidewall structure as the first latch keeper, and a third ramped surface adjacent an end of the second latch keeper;
wherein the third ramped surface is angled downward from the interface surface of the base; wherein the third ramped surface extends outward beyond a front surface of the second latch keeper;
wherein the lid includes a second latch assembly having a locked position and an unlocked position, wherein the second latch assembly engages the second latch keeper when the second latch assembly is in the locked position.
While, Yang teaches two latches on one side of the container, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to place latches on multiple sides to improve overall closure security, as distributing latches around a container is a routine design choice. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claims 16-17, Dumouline (figs. 1-3) discloses a base 12 for a container comprising:
a sidewall structure having a first side, a second side opposite the first side, a third side between the first side and the second side, and a fourth side opposite the third side, the sidewall structure having a first end and a second end;
a bottom portion connected to a first end of the sidewall structure;
an opening formed at the second end of the sidewall structure, opposite the first end, the opening being configured to allow access to an interior void of the container formed by the sidewall structure and the bottom portion; and a latch 16.
Dumouline fails to disclose:
a first latch keeper extending from the first side of the sidewall structure, wherein the first latch keeper is configured to engage a first latch assembly, wherein the first latch keeper forms a pocket and includes a support rib extending from the sidewall structure across the pocket to and inner surface of the first latch keeper;
a first ramped surface adjacent a first end of the first latch keeper, wherein the first ramped surface is angled downward from an interface surface of the base;
a second ramped surface adjacent a second end of the first latch keeper, wherein the second ramped surface is angled downward from the interface surface of the base, wherein the second end of the first latch keeper is opposite the first end of the first latch keeper;
a second latch keeper arranged on the third side of the sidewall structure, and a third ramped surface adjacent an end of the second latch keeper, wherein the third ramped surface is angled downward from the interface surface of the base; and
wherein the third ramped surface extends outward beyond a front surface of the second latch keeper.
However, Yang teaches a combination of a container and a lid with a latch comprising:
a first latch keeper A extending from the first side of the sidewall structure, wherein the first latch keeper A is configured to engage a first latch assembly 4, wherein the first latch keeper A forms a pocket 11 and includes a support rib 53 extending from the sidewall structure across the pocket to and inner surface of the first latch keeper A;
a first ramped surface 521 adjacent a first end of the first latch keeper A wherein the first ramped surface 521 is angled downward from an interface surface of the base; and
a first latch assembly 4 having a locked position and an unlocked position, wherein the first latch assembly 4 engages the first latch keeper A when the first latch assembly is in the locked position; and wherein when the lid is being moved to a closed position from an open position, the first ramped surface pushes the first latch assembly away from the base (figs. 2-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to employ a known snap-lock latch design, such as that shown in Yang, to achieve secure engagement. Latch designs with ramped surfaces and complementary engagement features were well-known alternatives in the field, as taught by Yang, and substituting one conventional latch for another to improve reliability would have been a routine design choice.
Also, while, Yang teaches two latches on one side of the container, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to place latches on multiple sides to improve overall closure security, as distributing latches around a container is a routine design choice. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 18, Dumoulin further discloses a pair of wheel assemblies, wherein each wheel assembly of the pair of wheel assemblies comprises a wheel housing 34 and a wheel 15 (fig. 3); and
a pull handle assembly 90 having an extended configuration and a nested configuration (fig.4).
Regarding the wheel being mounted to the wheel housing prior to the wheel assembly being secured to the base, the determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art.
Regarding claim 19, Dumoulin further discloses the extended configuration of the pull handle assembly 90 enables a user to pull the container and the nested configuration where a pull handle of the pull handle assembly is located within a recess of the sidewall structure (figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 20, Yang further teaches the first ramped surface 521 being angled downward from the interface surface of the base at an angle within a range of 20 degrees and 80 degrees (figs. 2-4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Yang fails to teach a pocket that receives a hook portion as recited in claims 1 and 11. However, as noted in the rejections above, Yang teaches a pocket 11 that receives a hook portion 714 (figs. 4-6).
Applicant further argues that Yang fails to teach “a support rib extending from the sidewall structure across the pocket. However, as noted in the rejections above, Yang teaches support rib 53 (see fig. 4).
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
Prosecution Insights