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 .
Election/Restrictions
The applicant’s response dated 01/30/2026 to the restriction requirement is acknowledged. The elects Species A (figure 2) with traverse, and puts forth that claims 1,2,4-11,13-16 and 18-20 correspond to the elected invention.
The applicant argues that Species A-M could easily be examined together without imposing an undue burden. The examiner disagrees with the applicant’s arguments for the reasons given in the restriction requirement. The 13 different embodiments have different structures that would require additional searching and the use of different references. As such, there would be a serious search and/or examination burden. Accordingly, the restriction is deemed proper and made final.
With respect to the claims that the applicant puts forth as corresponding to Species A, the applicant has appeared to have made some mistakes. The applicant puts forth that claims 3, 12 and 17 should be withdrawn from consideration. First claims 13-16 depend from claim 12, so they will also be withdrawn from consideration.
Second, the applicant appears to have confused the two embodiments that include a belt portion. Species A (figure 2) has a belt portion attached to the flange of the walls and includes a cover. Claims 7-8 and 20 are directed to the embodiment of figure 9 (Species E) and are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 3-6 and 19 are directed to the elected Species A (fig 2) and will be examined.
Accordingly, claims 7-8, 12-17 and 20 are withdrawn from consideration.
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 1-6, 9-11 and 18-19 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.
Regarding claim 1: the claim recites wherein the base is “thinner” on the interior surface and that the base is “thinner” on the exterior surface. The term “thinner” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term 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. It is not clear how thin an area must be to be considered “thinner.” And/or what it must be thinner than to be considered “thinner.”
Regarding claim 3: “the flange” lacks proper antecedent basis. Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 9-11 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kuester (US 2004/0164132).
PNG
media_image1.png
650
662
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1: Kuester discloses a container (1, fig 1) comprising: a base (3, fig 1); and at least four sidewalls (1 and 2, fig 1) extending upwardly from the base, wherein a first sidewall (2, fig 1) and a second sidewall (the other 2, fig 1) which is opposite the first sidewall each comprise at least a first panel (2a, fig 1) and a second panel (2b, fig 1), the first panel and the second panel being connected to each other by a first seam (24, fig 1); and wherein the base comprises an interior surface (fig 1) and an exterior surface (fig 4), wherein the base is thinner in the location of a pattern disposed on the interior surface of the base and wherein the interior pattern comprises an “X” shaped configuration pattern (fig 1 shows an ‘X’ shaped formed by thinned portions 26, fig 3, ¶0018), and wherein the base is thinner in the location of a pattern disposed on the exterior surface of the base (thinned portion/hinge 28, figs 3 and 4, ¶0018) and wherein the exterior pattern comprises a first line (28, figs 1 and 4) extending from the first seam of the first sidewall to the first seam of the second sidewall.
The examiner noting that this rejection is based on the embodiment of paragraph 0018 wherein, “the hinge-configuration of the base 3 allows it to fold in another mode from that described above and illustrated in FIG. 2. In this latter respect, folding of the base 3 may be inverted such that, rather than folding outwardly with the parts 3b outside the sides 1, it folds in a mode in which the hinges 26, 28 and 29 turn in the reverse senses to locate the parts 3b between the sides 1.” The embodiment depicted in the figures have the thinned portions arranged on the surface opposite from what is claimed, but paragraph 0018 discloses that the hinges can be reversed, which reads on the claim.
Regarding claim 2: Kuester discloses wherein the at least four sidewalls terminate in a flange (see above annotated figure).
Regarding claim 9: Kuester discloses wherein the first seam comprises a thinned area of the first sidewall and the second sidewall (see fig 3 which is typical for the hinges).
Regarding claim 10: Kuester discloses wherein the thinned area is disposed on an interior surface of the first sidewall and the second sidewall (as shown in fig 1).
Regarding claim 18: Kuester discloses a method of folding the container of claim 1 comprising: applying pressure to the first seam of the first sidewall and the first seam of the second sidewall; and compressing a third sidewall and a fourth sidewall toward one another (as described in ¶¶0014-0015,0017-0018, figs 1-3).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuester, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Rees (US 2011/0168598).
Regarding claim 3: Kuester discloses a flange at the upper part of the walls (see above annotated figure 2) but not that a belt portion that is affixed to the flange, wherein the belt portion is configured to retain the container in a closed configuration.
Rees discloses a very similar collapsible/foldable container with a belt portion (16, 17, 18, 21, figs 1 and 5) that is affixed to the top end of the sidewalls (fig 5), wherein the belt portion is configured to retain the container in a closed configuration (as shown in fig 1). Note that it is reasonable under BRI to consider 16 and its attachments to be a “belt portion” because it is a semi flexible strip of material that includes fasteners (¶0046-0047). Rees discloses that the “belt portion” can be used to cover the container (fig 1). Before the claimed invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kuester to include a belt portion, as taught by Rees, so that the container could be covered/closed to protect the contents of the container.
Regarding claim 6: the combined teachings of the references disclose wherein the at least four sidewalls terminate in a flange (see above annotated figure) and wherein the belt portion comprises a cover portion (16; Rees) that is commensurate in size and shape with the top of the sidewalls (Rees; figs 1 and 5).
Claim(s) 4-5 and19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuester and Rees, as applied to claim 3 above, in further view of Zaremski (US 2017/0334603).
PNG
media_image2.png
386
576
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4: Rees discloses wherein the belt portion is configured to attach to a hook and loop fastening strip (22b, fig 5) but not specifically a latch. Zaremski teaches a similar collapsible container (fig 1) with a lid (18) that is attached a latch (fig 1, ¶0035). Before the claimed invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kuester/Rees to include a latch because it would be a simple substitution of one means for closing a lid/ belt portion for another known and effective means.
Regarding claim 5: the combined teaching od the references disclose that wherein the latch is disposed on a central portion of a third sidewall. See Rees which shows that the latch/hooks and loop (22b) is located on a wall that is perpendicular to the first and second walls with seams (13).
With respect to the limitation that the latch is disposed adjacent the base, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have moved the latch to be adjacent to the base because said modification would be a simple rearrangement of parts and/or change in proportions (see MPEP 2144.04 IV A and MPEP 2144.04 VI C). The latch/container would function in the exact same way of the latch were moved closer to the base and the application has not disclosed any criticality or expected results to the exact placement of the latch location.
Regarding claim 19: the combined teachings of the references discloses all of the limitations, including a method of folding the container of claim 3 comprising: applying pressure to the first seam of the first sidewall and the first seam of the second sidewall; compressing a third sidewall and a fourth sidewall toward one another (as described in Kuester ¶¶0014-0015,0017-0018, figs 1-3); and wrapping the belt portion about the closed container and affixing the belt portion to a latch (see figs 1 and 5 of Rees; and ¶0035 of Zaremski).
The examiner noting that the above discussion of claim 4 is incorporated herein. Including the rationale for modifying the references to include a latch as taught by Zaremski.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DON M ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4923. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5, Monday-Friday.
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.
/DON M ANDERSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733