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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the reply filed on 11/25/2025, wherein claims 1, 5-6, 9, 14, 24, 28 were amended, claims 3, 8, 10-11, 13, 15, 17-23, 26-27 are cancelled, claim 29 are new. Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9, 12, 14, 16, 24-25, 28-29 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 29 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: The originally examined claims never discussed details pertaining to the second inverted handle, such as a second finger recess, location, etc.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 29 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 1-2, 4-7, 9, 12, 14, 16, 24-25, 28 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 “a top of the finger recess being dimensioned not to protrude inwardly beyond interior base corners of the upstanding wall having the finger recess.” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a top of the finger recess being dimensioned not to protrude inwardly beyond interior base corners of the upstanding wall having the finger recess.” 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. From the drawings and specification, the base corners are item 32 and the finger recess is item 102. Figure 6 shows that item 102 protrudes more inwardly than item 32. Does the base corners refer to the outer edges of the rib containing 102? If so, those slant outwardly and the handle could still be considered more inwardly protruding than the outermost point. Is this stating that the top of the handle is flush with the start of the base corners? Is this portion (that’s flush with the base corners) be considered as part of the recess? Technically the flush portion is not recessed. Claims 2, 4-7, 9, 12, 14, 16, 24-25, 28 directly or indirectly depend from claim 1 and are also rejected.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, 9, 12, 14, 16, 24-25, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hassel (US 20060231449 A1) in view of LaBuda (US 5390818 A).
With respect to claim 1, Hassel discloses a container, wherein the container comprises a base (12) and upstanding walls (14, 16) on the base, wherein the upstanding walls each comprise a top edge (top edge of 14, 16), the top edges defining a top opening therebetween, wherein the container comprises an inverted lifting handle (figure 1, bottom openings) to enable, at least in part, lifting of the container when the container is in an inverted orientation, and wherein the inverted lifting handle (bottom opening) is at an elevation proximal to an elevation of the base, and distal from an elevation of the top opening, the interior surface being corrugated to define a ribbed shape (wall 16 has ribbed shape), the ribbed shape comprising wall ribs in an upright orientation, on opposite upstanding walls (opposing 16s) of the upstanding walls of the container.
PNG
media_image1.png
402
603
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
208
318
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Hassel further discloses wherein the inverted lifting handle is a first inverted lifting handle, and wherein the container comprises a second inverted lifting handle to a second opposite side of the container than the first inverted lifting handle. (openings on opposing walls of 16)
With respect to claim 4, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references further discloses wherein the inverted lifting handle comprises a finger engaging surface (bottom surface of 32 of LaBuda facing 34) to impart a reaction force against an upwards lifting force applied to the finger engaging surface when the container is in the inverted orientation. Refer to claim 1 rejection above for combination rationale.
With respect to claim 5, the references as applied to claim 4, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references further discloses wherein the base comprises an upper side facing the upstanding walls, and an underside opposite the upper side and facing an opposite direction than the upper side, wherein the finger engaging surface (bottom surface of 32 of LaBuda facing 34) faces, at least in part, an opposite direction than the underside of the base. Refer to claim 1 rejection above for combination rationale.
With respect to claim 6, the references as applied to claim 4, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references further discloses wherein the finger engaging surface (bottom surface of 32 of LaBuda facing 34) comprises at least one of a depth dimension greater than or equal to one centimeter, to provide enough of a ledge to receive a digit of a hand of a user; or a width dimension greater than three centimeters to provide space to receive a plurality of digits of a hand of a user. (Both measurements are inherently met as LaBuda’s recess is intended to receive a user’s hand or foot) Refer to claim 1 rejection above for combination rationale.
With respect to claim 7, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references further discloses wherein the finger recess comprises first and second lower edges (see figure 4 of LaBuda) separated from each other in a depth dimension of the finger recess, and first and second upper edges (see figure 4 of LaBuda) separated from each other in the depth dimension, wherein the first and second lower edges and first and second upper edges extend in a width dimension of the container and are parallel to each other, wherein the first and second lower edges are vertically closer to the base than the first and second upper edges, wherein the first lower edge is inward of the second lower edge in the depth dimension, wherein the first upper edge is inward of the second upper edge in the depth dimension, wherein the second lower edge is a transitional edge, and wherein the transitional edge comprises a convex fillet. (It isn’t clear from drawings; however, it is clear that LaBuda includes a filleted edge for the base edge. It would’ve been obvious to include one on the surfaces relating to the finger recess as sharp edges would be undesired as it can harm the user.) Refer to claim 1 rejection above for combination rationale.
With respect to claim 9, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references further discloses wherein the inverted lifting handle comprises a reinforcing portion (top of 50 of LaBuda figure 5), wherein the reinforcing portion comprises at least one reinforcing rib (top of 50 of LaBuda figure 5). Refer to claim 1 rejection above for combination rationale.
With respect to claim 12, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references as applied failed to disclose wherein the inverted lifting handle comprises a drain. However, LaBuda does teach of an aperture (40) or a duckbill valve (44 also known as a one-way drain valve) in order to allow selective flow. It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the finger recess of Hassel and Labuda to include an opening as taught by Labuda in order to allow for increase flow.
With respect to claim 14, the references as applied to claim 12, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references further teach wherein the drain is located at a finger engaging surface of the inverted lifting handle. (as taught by 40/44 of Labuda, refer to claim 12 rejection above for combination rationale.)
With respect to claim 16, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Hassel further discloses comprising an upright lifting handle (handle on figure 1 above) to enable, at least in part, lifting of the container when the container is in an upright orientation, wherein the upright lifting handle is at a same one of the upstanding walls as the inverted lifting handle. Refer to claim 1 rejection above for combination rationale.
With respect to claim 24, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Hassel further discloses wherein the container comprises nesting separators and nesting platforms (figure 1 above) above the nesting separators, wherein the nesting platforms are configured to receive the nesting separators of another container nested within the container to provide a minimum vertical nesting separation distance between the top edges of the other container and the top edges of the container. (separation and configuration visible in figure 3) Refer to claim 1 rejection above for combination rationale.
With respect to claim 25, the references as applied to claim 24, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Hassel further discloses wherein the minimum vertical nesting separation distance is greater than a vertical height of the finger recess from the base of the container, to prevent the base of the other container from hitting the finger recess of the container. (As visible in figure 3 of Hassel, for the bottom container, the base is visible through the finger recess. The bottom of the upper container is not visible through the finger recesses.) Refer to claim 1 rejection above for combination rationale.
With respect to claim 28, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Hassel further discloses wherein the wall ribs extend up the upstanding walls further than the finger recess. (ribs of Hassel extend higher than the finger recess as taught by Hassel and LaBuda) Refer to claim 1 rejection above for combination rationale.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-7784615-B2 OR US-6269967-B1 OR US-5096083-A OR US-6581796-B1 OR US-6471221-B1 OR US-20150321796-A1 OR US-20120199513-A1 OR US-20060273084-A1 OR US-20020008043-A1 OR US-20180016060-A1 OR US-20160280424-A1 OR US-20150151910-A1 OR US-20140361026-A1 OR US-20060065568-A1 OR US-20170190472-A1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 extension fee 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 SYMREN K SANGHERA whose telephone number is (571)272-5305. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri.
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 on (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.
/S.K.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/ERNESTO A GRANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735