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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: base-10 and bottom-14. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In lines 1-2, “the bottom comprises three side edges and three vertices” should be --the plurality of edges comprises three side edges and the bottom further comprises three vertices--.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1, “comprising six side walls” should be --wherein the plurality of side walls comprises six side walls--.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In lines 1-2, “a side wall extends from a respective bottom side edge and a side wall extends from a respective vertex” should be --a side wall of the six side walls extends from a respective one of the three side edges and another side wall of the six side walls extends from a respective vertex of the three vertices--.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1, “three side walls” should be --three side wall of the six side walls--, and
In line 2, “three other side walls” should be --three other side walls of the six side walls--.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 2, “the bottom five” should be --the bottom and five--.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 4, “top” should be --the top--.
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.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 7-9 require at least one of the plurality of side walls extending perpendicularly from the bottom. However, the specification merely provides support for each of the walls extending from the bottom upwardly and outwardly from the bottom such that an angle measurement taken from the interior of the bottom to an interior of the walls will be obtuse (paragraph 43 of instant application). The specification fails to provide support for any of the walls extending perpendicularly from the bottom. Accordingly, it is not clear what sides are angled perpendicularly and it is not clear what structure supports the claimed perpendicular angle.
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, 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ziristor (GB 1479215 A).
Regarding claim 1, Ziristor teaches a container comprising: a bottom (1) having a plurality of edges (6, 7, 8, 9); and a plurality of side walls (2, 3, 4, 5, 13) extending from the bottom wherein a number of the plurality of sidewalls is greater than a number of the plurality of edges (page 1 line 51-page 2 line 82 and Fig. 1, 2).
Regarding claim 7, Ziristor teaches the container of claim 1 above, wherein at least one of the plurality of side walls extends perpendicularly from the bottom and at least another one of the plurality of side walls extends obtusely from the bottom (page 1 line 51-page 2 line 82 and Fig. 1, 2). The at least another one of the plurality of side walls extends obtusely from the bottom to an exterior of the at least another one of the plurality of side walls.
Regarding claim 13, Ziristor teaches a method for making a container comprising: providing a unitary blank (Fig. 2); and assembling the blank into the container comprising a bottom (1) having a plurality of edges (6, 7, 8, 9); and a plurality of side walls (2, 3, 4, 5, 13) extending form the bottom wherein a number of the plurality of sidewalls is greater than a number of the plurality of edges (page 1 line 51-page 2 line 82 and Fig. 1, 2).
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated Doll et al. (US 3,316,102 A, hereinafter Doll).
Regarding claim 1, Doll teaches a container comprising: a bottom (31/54, 71/91) having a plurality of edges (33, 73); and a plurality of side walls (32a/32b/32c/32d/43, 72a/72b/72c/72d/80) extending from the bottom wherein a number of the plurality of sidewalls is greater than a number of the plurality of edges (column 3 line 26-column 9 line 65 and Fig. 1-22).
Regarding claim 2, Doll teaches the container of claim 1 above, wherein the plurality of edges define a first perimeter having a first total length and wherein each of the plurality of side walls have a distal edge that define a second perimeter having a second total length, wherein the second total length is greater than the first total length (Fig. 1, 10, 11, 14, 19, 20).
Regarding claim 3, Doll teaches the container of claim 2 above, wherein the plurality of edges comprises three side edges and the bottom further comprises three vertices (Fig. 1-6, 10, 11, 14-16, 19, 20). The four side edges and four vertices include the claimed three side edges and three vertices.
Regarding claim 4, Doll teaches the container of claim 3 above, wherein the plurality of side walls comprises six side walls (Fig. 1, 10, 11, 14, 19, 20). The eight side walls include the claimed six side walls.
Regarding claim 5, Doll teaches the container of claim 4 above, wherein a side wall of the six side walls extends from a respective one of the three side edges and another side wall of the six side walls extends from a respective vertex of the three vertices (Fig. 1, 10, 11, 14, 19, 20).
Regarding claim 6, Doll teaches the container of claim 5 above, wherein three side walls of the six side walls each have an identical distal edge first length and three other side walls of the six side walls each have an identical distance edge second length such that the first length is greater than the second length (Fig. 1, 11, 14, 20).
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.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ziristor, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Watts (US 3,623,650 A).
Regarding claim 10, Ziristor teaches the container of claim 1 above, but fails to teach a top with a first edge hingedly connected to a distal edge of one of the plurality of side walls.
Watts teaches an analogous container comprising a bottom (21) having a plurality of edges (42, 43, 44, 45), and a plurality of side walls (22, 23, 24, 25) extending from the bottom. Watts further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to provide the container with a top (30) having a first edge (31) hingedly connected to a distal edge (31) of one of the plurality of side walls (23) in order to provide the container with a closure (column 2 line 6-column 4 line 32 and FIG. 1-4).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Ziristor by providing the container with a top having a first edge hingedly connected to a distal edge of one of the plurality of side walls, as suggested by Watts, in order to provide the container with a closure.
Regarding claim 11, Ziristor as modified by Watts teaches the container of claim 10 above, but fails to teach a locking slit provided in one of the plurality of side walls, and a locking tab extending from an edge of the top other than the first edge, wherein when the top overlies the bottom, the locking tab removably engages the locking slit.
Watts further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to provide the container with a locking slit (66) provided in one of the plurality of side walls and a locking tab (62) extending from an edge of the top other than the first edge, wherein when the top overlies the bottom, the locking tab removably engages the locking slit (column 4 lines 12-32 and FIG. 1-4) in order to secure the top in the closed position.
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Ziristor by additionally providing a locking slit provided in one of the plurality of side walls, and a locking tab extending from an edge of the top other than the first edge, wherein when the top overlies the bottom, the locking tab removably engages the locking slit, as taught by Watts, in order to secure the top in the closed position.
Regarding claim 12, Ziristor as modified by Watts teaches the container of claim 11 above, wherein the container further comprises a pull tab (65) located on the edge of the top other than the first edge and adjacent the locking tab to effect disengagement of the locking tab form the locking slit when moved in a direction away from the bottom (Watts: column 4 lines 12-32 and FIG. 1-4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 9 would be allowable if the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action are overcome and if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Asman (US 3,462,065 A), Hothersall (US 927,537 A), and Malmo (US 3,565324 A).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NINA KAY ATTEL whose telephone number is (571)270-3972. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-4PM EST.
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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at 571-272-4544. 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.
/NINA K ATTEL/ Examiner, Art Unit 3734
/NATHAN J NEWHOUSE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights