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 .
The amendment filed 5/22/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 objected to because of the following informalities: improper grammar “and ends of the partition wall aligned with the loading space” (should read “walls” to reference the partition walls of claim 1). 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 1-7 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.
The term “almost completely” in claims 1 and 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “almost” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Page 3 of the Specification does not disclose what amount is considered “almost” complete drainage (e.g. 99%, 90% 80%? Etc). Further, it is noted that this limitation is highly dependent upon how much liquid is in the container in the first place as it relates to an unknown initial quantity of liquid.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the bottom" in the last paragraph. 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 11,713,178 (Beckerman et al. hereinafter).
In re claim 1, with reference to Figs. 4, 5, and 10, Beckerman et al. discloses: A container (10) for storing and transporting objects, comprising: a base (18), which delimits a lower part of the container, and at least one first pair of side walls (15a, 15b) arranged opposite one another and extending upwards from the base, wherein at least the side walls of the first pair of side walls each have drainage channels (“draining openings 50”, paragraph 0044) for lateral drainage of liquid from the container and the drainage channels within the side walls are each separated from one another by partition walls (54a, see Fig. 4), wherein the partition walls, in a cross-sectional plane extending parallel to the base, are inclined at an angle to an upright of the respective side wall, which in the cross-sectional plane is perpendicular to a respective outer surface of the respective side wall (see Figs. 4 and 10), wherein the first pair of side walls comprise a first side wall (15a) and a second side wall (15b), wherein the drainage channels comprise a first drainage channel on the first side wall and a second drainage channel on the second side wall (column 6, lines 15-23), and wherein the drainage channels are configured to prevent a light beam from simultaneously passing through the first drainage channel and the second drainage channel (column 7, lines 5-10), wherein the base delimits a lower part of a loading space of the container (i.e. can contain fluid in/on other objects placed therein) and the partition walls are directly adjacent to a surface of the base (i.e. the upper surface of the base) and the drainage channels are limited at the bottom by the surface of the base (see fig. 6, paragraph 0030: “As disclosed herein, the base 18 partially defines a perimeter of drainage openings 50”) for the liquid to flow almost completely out of the container through the drainage channels (as interpreted herein, slope of 18 shown in Fig. 6 would retain some amount of liquid, which could render drainage “almost” complete dependent upon an unknown initial amount of liquid).
Please note that the claims are directed to apparatus which must be distinguished from the prior art in term of structure rather function [MPEP 2144]. Hence, the functional limitations “for a lateral draining of liquid” which are narrative in form have not been given any patentable weight. In order to be given patentable weight, a functional recitation must be supported by recitation in the claim of sufficient structure to warrant the presence of the functional language. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
PNG
media_image1.png
455
437
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
378
449
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
287
288
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
412
436
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In re claim 2, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Beckerman et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein the partition walls each have an angle of at least 30 degrees to the respective upright within the cross-sectional plane (see Fig. 10, approx. 45 degree angle).
In re claim 3, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Beckerman et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein the partition walls each have an angle of approximately 45 degrees to the respective upright within the cross-sectional plane (see fig. 10, approx. 45 degree angle).
In re claim 4, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Beckerman et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein the first side wall comprises first partition walls and the second side wall comprises second partition walls and within the cross-sectional plane the first partition walls are arranged at a right angle or an acute angle to each other in relation to the second partition walls (See figs. 4 and 5, walls 54a of first side and 54b of second side are approx.. 90 degrees).
In re claim 5, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Beckerman et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein the first side wall comprises first partition walls and the second side wall comprises second partition walls and within the cross-sectional plane at least the first partition walls have different angles to the upright, which is perpendicular to the outer surface of the first side wall (as in re claim 4 above).
In re claim 6, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Beckerman et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein the base and the side walls delimit a loading space of the container and ends of the partition wall aligned with the loading space extend partially parallel to the side walls (at joint of 54a with sidewall 15b for example, in Fig. 4).
In re claim 7, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Beckerman et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein the container has a second pair of side walls arranged opposite one another and extending upwards from the base (15c and 15d), wherein the side walls of the first pair are arranged perpendicular to the side walls of the second pair, and at least one side wall of the second pair has further drainage channels (column 6, lines 8-11) for the liquid to flow almost completely out of the container and the further drainage channels are each separated from one another by further partition walls and the further partition walls extend parallel to the partition walls of at least one of the side walls of the first pair [i.e. 45 degrees, when channels are formed identical to that of walls 15a and 15b, except on walls 15c and 15d, as would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in providing the further channels to the second pair of side walls as taught by Beckerman et al. in column 6, lines 8-11: “One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the drainage openings 50 could be defined on other regions of the container 10, including sidewalls 15c, 15d (i.e. the lateral sidewalls)”].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that the “loading space” of Beckerman is defined at upper edges of the reinforcement elements, it is noted in re claim 1 above that the upper surface of 18 is considered to delimit a “loading space” when the content to be loaded includes liquid which may drip and/or a feature of the content which may protrude downwards and fit into a space between reinforcement elements for example. Therefore Applicant’s narrow description of a “loading space” is not considered persuasive.
No further arguments are presented.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANDREW T KIRSCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5723. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9a-5p 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 Jenness can be reached at 571-270-5055. 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.
/ANDREW T KIRSCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights