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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 10, paragraphs 1 and 2 “30R” is identified as both the left-side wall and the right-side wall. Note: In Figure 5A, “30L” is used to identify one of the sides.
On page 11, paragraph 2 “Fig. 76” is written, but no such figure exists.
Also, the specification recites “US2010052276, which is an incomplete publication number
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 29, 166, 168. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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 38 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites the language “of the of the slidable lid”. 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.
Claim 7 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. Specifically, the claim recites “an axle support member inwardly extending from a bottom portion of legs of the telescopic handle”, which could mean inward in the direction of the two supports of the handle or it could mean inward towards the back of the base container. Alternatively there could be another inward orientation to be considered as well as there has been no scope provided in the claim to establish inwardly extending relative to what.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the wheel axle support indention of the base container ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “reduced sliding friction” in claim 33 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “reduced sliding friction” 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. The word “reduced” draws questions of reduced compared to what, the slides definitely have reduced friction relative to something that does not allow the lateral movement of two object relative to one another, which in that case, any slide would meet this limitation.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7-9, 17, 19, 28, and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Katz (US 7,845,653).
With regards to claim 1, Katz discloses a transportable container assembly comprising a base container (20) configured with upright extending side walls defining a top opening (28) of the base container, a slidable lid (48) is slidingly displaceable over the top opening of the base container between a closed position wherein the lid coextends over and covers the top opening (Figures 1-2) , and an open position wherein the lid is displaced backwards and exposes the base container (Figures 3-9) to allow access thereto; wherein the slidable lid is configured with an articulation arrangement (Column 4, Lines 25-30) for detachably articulating thereto at least one utility module (40), and wherein a back portion of the lid is configured with a handle assembly (70, 71, 72, 74, 80, 81, 82) and a locomotive arrangement (60 and 62) for locomoting the container assembly at the closed position, wherein the handle assembly is a telescopic handle (via 76) manipulable between a collapsed position and at least one retracted position, and the locomotive arrangement is a wheel assembly (60) disposed at a bottom portion of the handle assembly, and wherein the container assembly is locomoted over the wheel assembly by tilting the container assembly backwards.
With regards to 3, Katz discloses the transportable container assembly according to claim 1, wherein the wheel assembly comprises at least a pair of wheels wherein a tangent of the wheels is leveled with a bottom face of the base container (Figure 5).
With regards to claim 4, Katz discloses the transportable container assembly according to claim 1, wherein the wheels are disposed at a fixed elevation, and wherein when the container assembly is positioned over a flat support surface, displacing the slidable lid into its open position entails rolling displacement of the wheels over a ground surface.
With regards to claim 5, Katz discloses the transportable container assembly according to claim 1, wherein a roll axis of the wheels extends (i) below bottom ends of legs of the handle assembly (Figure 5), or (ii) between a back face of the base container and the front face of the handle assembly.
With regards to claim 7, Katz discloses the transportable container assembly according to claim 1, wherein an axle (62) of the wheels is articulable to an axle support member inwardly extending from a bottom portion of legs of the telescopic handle.
With regards to claim 8, Katz discloses the transportable container assembly according to claim 7, wherein the wheels axle is supported by two support members (bottom portions of 74 and 72, respectively), each extending at a bottom of a respective leg of the handle assembly.
With regards to claim 9, Katz discloses the transportable container assembly according to claim 1, wherein an axle of the wheels is articulable to a non-displaceable bottom support segment of the handle assembly, thereby retaining the wheels at a fixed elevation.
With regards to claim 17, Katz discloses the transportable container assembly according to claim 1, wherein the slidable lid is configured at a back end thereof with a downwardly extending portion, wherein at the closed position of the slidable lid a front face of said downwardly extending portion extends behind a rear face of a rear top edge of the base container.
With regards to claim 19, Katz discloses the transportable container assembly according to claim 1, wherein at the fully closed position of the slidable lid, a portion of the wheels is received within depressions (24) configured at respective side walls of the base container.
With regards to claim 28, Katz discloses the transportable container assembly according to claim 1, wherein the utility module is detachably attachable over the top face of the slidable lid, regardless of the position of the slidable lid and/or of the telescopic handle.
With regards to claim 38, Katz discloses the transportable container assembly according to claim 1, wherein the articulation arrangement is configured at any location of the of the slidable lid (Column 4, Lines 25-30).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katz (US 7,845,653) in view of Brunner (US 2010/0052276).
With regards to claim 13, Katz discloses the transportable container assembly according to claim 1 but fails to disclose wherein at the closed position of the slidable lid, a bottom face portion of the wheel axle support indention of the base container bears over a top face of said axle support members. However, Brunner, teaches this feature, as illustrated best in Figures 12A and 12B. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have incorporated the teachings of Brunner into Katz in order to allow a further retention of the wheel assembly in to the base container, providing further protection around the wheels of the device.
Claim(s) 31, 33, and 34-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katz (US 7,845,653) in view of Brunner (WO 2014/125484).
With regards to claim 31, Katz discloses the transportable container assembly according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose, while Brunner teaches, wherein the slidable lid is slidably articulated over the base container by a rail mechanism disposed at respective side ends of the base container and slidable lid, wherein the rail mechanism is a telescopic rail set, comprising a first rail member (52) articulated at a top portion of the base container, and a second rail member articulated at a bottom portion (54) of the slidable lid, wherein the first rail member and the second rail member are engaged with one another and configured for sliding displacement with respect to one another. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have incorporated the teachings of Brunner in to the invention of Katz as it would have been an art recognized equivalent to the rail arrangement generally discussed in the Katz reference to achieve the objective of being able to access the containers by linear displacement of the lid.
With regards to claim 33, the combination of Katz and Brunner teaches the transportable container assembly according to claim 31 wherein the first rail member and the second rail member are configured for reduced sliding friction therebetween (52, 54, 56).
With regards to claim 34, the combination of Katz and Brunner teaches the transportable container assembly according to claim 31 wherein the first rail member is secured at an inside top side edges of the base container, and the second rail member is configured at an outside-facing wall portion of the slidable lid, respectively (Figures 5A and 5B).
With regards to claim 35, the combination of Katz and Brunner teaches the transportable container assembly according to claim 1, and Brunner further teaches wherein either or both of the base container and the slidable lid comprise a sliding restricting arrangement (80), configured for restricted sliding displacement of the sliding lid between a fully open position and a closed position thereof. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have incorporated the teachings of Brunner in to the invention of Katz as it would have been an art recognized equivalent to the lock arrangement generally discussed in the Katz reference to achieve the objective of being able to secure access to the bin for security and transport.
Claim(s) 37 and 39-43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katz (US 7,845,653) in view of Brunner (US 2019/0002004).
With regards to claim 37, Katz discloses the transportable container assembly according to claim 1, however, while Katz generally discloses an articulation arrangement on the lid, it is not so specific as to exact placement, but Brunner teaches wherein the articulation arrangement is configured at a top face of the slidable lid (245). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have incorporated the teachings of Brunner in to the invention of Katz in order to provide an easy to access locking means for securing stacked elements relative to one another to avoid the stack falling when tilted and rolled.
With regards to claim 39, the combination of Katz and Brunner teaches the transportable container assembly according to claim 1, wherein the articulation arrangement is configured at either or both side portions of the slidable lid (245), and/or the articulation arrangement can be disposed at either or both back and front portions of the slidable lid.
With regards to claim 40, the combination of Katz and Brunner teaches the transportable container assembly according to claim 1, wherein the articulation arrangement is configured for attaching a utility module having a smaller footprint than that of the lid assembly (240 and 230 nesting arrangement).
With regards to claim 41, the combination of Katz and Brunner teaches the transportable container assembly according to claim 1, wherein the articulation arrangement (245) comprises at least one locking member (248) pivotally secured to the lid assembly, and the utility module is configured with a locking receptacle (254); wherein the locking member is configured with at least one locking latch (250) configurable for locking engagement within said locking receptacle; and wherein the locking member is pivotally displaceable between a locked position in which the at least one locking latch is radially engaged within the locking receptacle, and an unlocked position in which the locking member is outwardly pivoted and the at least one locking latch is disengaged from the locking receptacle (Paragraph [0136]).
With regards to claim 42, Katz discloses the transportable container assembly according to claim 1, however, while Katz generally discloses an articulation arrangement on the lid, it is not so specific as to exact design, but Brunner teaches wherein the articulation arrangement comprises a sliding locking mechanism (60), wherein the lid assembly is configured with a first locking member (64) and the utility module is configured at a bottom portion thereof with a second locking member (90); such that when the utility module rests over the lid assembly, said first locking member and said second locking members are aligned and are configured for lockingly interacting with one another (Paragraphs 0115 and 0116). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have incorporated the teachings of Brunner into the invention of Katz in order to provide an easy to access locking means for securing stacked elements relative to one another to avoid the stack falling when tilted and rolled.
With regards to claim 43, the combination of Katz and Brunner teaches the transportable container assembly according to claim 1, wherein the articulation arrangement comprises a pair of pivoting latch members (245), each disposed near an opposite end of the lid assembly, and the utility module is configured at a bottom portion thereof with a pair of spaced apart locking retaining members (254) for detachable articulation with the pivoting latch members of the slidable lid; wherein the slidable lid is configured with a top bearing face (230) and said utility module is configured with a bottom bearing face (240), whereby the pivoting latch members can be arrested by the locking retaining members when the bottom bearing face bears over the top bearing face.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Supervisory Patent Examiner should be directed to JOHN R. OLSZEWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-2706. The Supervisory Patent Examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 5:30am - 4:00pm.
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 Supervisory Patent Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Supervisory Patent Examiner’s supervisor, TC Director Joseph Thomas can be reached at 571-272-8004. 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.
JOHN R. OLSZEWSKI
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3617
/JOHN OLSZEWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3617