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 .
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 1-18 and 20-21 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 claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. For example, claims 1 and 12 recite “at least indirectly alternating manner”. It is unclear and ambiguous as whether the recesses and protrusions are required to alternate or not. Claim 1 also recites “connection geometry”. It is not clear if the “the connection geometry” is the protrusions and recesses or not.
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 1,3, 6-8, 10, 12, 14-15, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Strawder (US 5,381,916).
Regarding claim 1, Strawder (figs. 8-10) discloses a base system for placing on at least two standardized small load carriers 31 (capable of being used as Euro containers) arranged next to one another on a flat subsurface, the base system comprising:
at least two substantially rectangular base panels 40 wherein each base panel 40 is provided with connection recesses 45 and connection protrusions 44 around the edge in an at least indirectly alternating manner, the base panels 40 can be connected to one another via the recesses 45 and protrusions 44 at the edges in a form fitting manner, mutually facing sides of the relevant base panel 40 being designed to be complementary to one another, each base panel 40 being provided with connection geometries (or the recesses 45 and protrusions 44) around the edge, which geometries are identical and directly adjoin one another in a peripheral manner, and each connection geometry being formed by a first edge portion of the base panel a connection recess, a connection protrusion, and a second edge portion of the base panel in this order, the connection recess of the relevant connection geometry directly adjoining the connection protrusion of said connection geometry .
Regarding claim 3, Strawder further discloses the base panels 40 being identical (fig. 10).
Regarding claim 6, Strawder further discloses a lower face 43 of at least one base panel 40 which faces the small load carrier 31 being smaller than an upper face 42 of the base panel (fig. 8).
Regarding claim 7, Strawder further discloses a peripheral gradation being formed at the edge between the upper face 42 and the lower face 43 (fig. 8).
Regarding claim 8, 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, Strawder further discloses least two small load carriers 30 which can be placed next to one another on a flat subsurface (fig. 10).
Regarding claim 12, Strawder (figs. 8-10) discloses a base system for placing on at least two standardized small load carriers 31 (capable of being used as Euro containers) arranged next to one another on a flat subsurface, the base system comprising:
at least two substantially rectangular base panels 40 wherein each base panel 40 is provided with connection recesses 45 and connection protrusions 44 around the edge in an at least indirectly alternating manner, the base panels 40 can be connected to one another via the recesses 45 and protrusions 44 at the edges in a form fitting manner, mutually facing sides of the relevant base panel 40 being designed to be complementary to one another, and
a lower face 43 of at least one base panel 40, which faces the small load carrier 31 being smaller than the upper face 42 of the base panel 40 a peripheral gradation being formed at the edge between the upper face and the lower face.
Regarding claim 14, Strawder further discloses each base panel 40 being provided with connection geometries (or the recesses 45 and protrusions 44) around the edge, which geometries are identical and directly adjoin one another in a peripheral manner, and each connection geometry being formed by a first edge portion of the base panel a connection recess, a connection protrusion, and a second edge portion of the base panel in this order, the connection recess of the relevant connection geometry directly adjoining the connection protrusion of said connection geometry (fig. 10).
Regarding claim 15, Strawder further discloses the base panels 40 being identical (fig. 10).
Regarding claim 18, 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 20, Strawder further discloses least two small load carriers 30 which can be placed next to one another on a flat subsurface (fig. 10).
Claims 1, 10-12 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kander (US 3,815,281).
Alternatively, regarding claim 1, Kander (figs. 1-3) discloses a base system for placing on at least two standardized small load carriers 10 (capable of being used as Euro containers) arranged next to one another on a flat subsurface, the base system comprising:
at least two substantially rectangular base panels 12 wherein each base panel 12 is provided with connection recesses 24 and connection protrusions 22 around the edge in an at least indirectly alternating manner, the base panels 12 can be connected to one another via the recesses 24 and protrusions 22 at the edges in a form fitting manner, mutually facing sides of the relevant base panel 12 being designed to be complementary to one another, each base panel 12 being provided with connection geometries (or the recesses 24 and protrusions 24) around the edge, which geometries are identical and directly adjoin one another in a peripheral manner, and each connection geometry being formed by a first edge portion of the base panel a connection recess, a connection protrusion, and a second edge portion of the base panel in this order, the connection recess of the relevant connection geometry directly adjoining the connection protrusion of said connection geometry.
Regarding claim 10, Kander further discloses least two small load carriers 10 which can be placed next to one another on a flat subsurface (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 11, Kander further discloses the base panel 12 have larger dimensions in the region of the connection protrusions and smaller dimensions in the region of the connection recesses than an upper face of the relevant small load carrier (fig. 1).
Alternatively, regarding claim 12, Kander (figs. 1-3) discloses a base system for placing on at least two standardized small load carriers 10 (capable of being used as Euro containers) arranged next to one another on a flat subsurface, the base system comprising:
at least two substantially rectangular base panels 12 wherein each base panel 12 is provided with connection recesses 24 and connection protrusions 22 around the edge in an at least indirectly alternating manner, the base panels 12 can be connected to one another via the recesses 24 and protrusions 22 at the edges in a form fitting manner, mutually facing sides of the relevant base panel 12 being designed to be complementary to one another, and
a lower face 28 of at least one base panel 12, which faces the small load carrier 10 being smaller than the upper face 16 of the base panel 40 a peripheral gradation being formed at the edge between the upper face and the lower face.
Alternatively, regarding claim 20, Kander further discloses least two small load carriers 12 which can be placed next to one another on a flat subsurface (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 21, Kander further discloses the base panel 12 have larger dimensions in the region of the connection protrusions and smaller dimensions in the region of the connection recesses than an upper face of the relevant small load carrier (fig. 1).
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 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strawder (US 5,381,916) in view of Rincover (US 2005/0106989).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Strawder discloses all elements of the claimed invention except for at least one connection recess being designed to be dovetail-shaped and at least one connection protrusion being designed to be dovetail-shaped in a complementary manner thereto.
However, Rincover teaches dovetail-shaped connections (fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have connections of Strawder, dovetail-shaped, as taught by Rincover, to prevent unintentional separation of the connections.
Claim 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strawder (US 5,381,916) in view of DiSesa (US 5,038,937).
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Strawder discloses all elements of the claimed invention except for at least one securing recess for securing a small load carrier placed on the base panel against slipping relative to the base panel is formed on an upper face of at least one base panel, which faces away from the small load carrier.
However, DiSesa teaches a base panel 15 having at least one securing recess defined by ridges 21 (fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have provided the base panel 40 of Strawder, at least one securing recess, to add strength and provide support for stacking containers, as taught by DiSesa in col. 2, lines 31-33.
Claims 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strawder (US 5,381,916) in view of Clark (US 2,046,609).
Regarding claims 5 and 17, Strawder further discloses a central handle 41 being provided on the base panel (fig.10). However, Strawder fails to disclose the handle being formed by at least one perforation through which a handle portion of the base panel extends.
Clark teaches a handle 4 that extends from a recess (fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have made the handle of Strawder, extend from a recess, as taught by Clark, for allowing stacking containers on top of another.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strawder (US 5,381,916) in view of Gagle (US 2,882,714).
Regarding claim 9, Strawder discloses all elements of the claimed invention as applied to claim 8 above, except for the panel being provided with a laminate on one or both sides.
However, Gagle teaches a panel being provided with laminates 18a and 19a of impervious material on two sides (fig. 7 and col.2, lines 40-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have provided the panel of Strawder a top and bottom layer, as taught by Gagle, to make the panel impervious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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