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 6 and 8 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.
Claim 6 uses inconsistent and unclear language regarding “male” and “female” coupling portions and “one of” versus “both” such that it is unclear what configuration is being claimed and the scope cannot be determined.
Claim 8 recites inconsistent scope by stating locking engagement occurs in “two directions” and “one direction only”. This renders the claim unclear whether bidirectional or unidirectional engagement is required.
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.
Claims1, 3-8, 10-11, 14, 18, 21, 31, 33 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (US 6,209,725).
Regarding claim 1, Chen (figs. 4-6) discloses a utility assembly comprising:
at least one first utility module and at least one second utility module; and
a coupling mechanism 31, 63 for detachable articulation a second utility module to a first utility module, said coupling mechanism 31, 63 comprising a male coupling portion 31 associated with one of the at least one first utility module and the at least one second utility module, and a female coupling portion 63 associated with another one of the at least one first utility module and the at least one second utility module; wherein
the male coupling portion 31 is configured with at least a pair of symmetrically distributed locking members 33 laterally projecting from a male rotation axis normal to a projecting locking plane,
the female coupling portion 63 is configured with at least a pair of corresponding symmetrically distributed locking recesses 64 extending from a female rotation axis normal to a depressed receiving plane, said locking members 33 being disposed in register with said locking recesses 64 and said female rotation axis coinciding with said male rotation axis, and
said locking members 33 are configured for rotation engagement by said locking recesses 64.
Regarding claim 3, Chen further discloses each one of the first utility module and the second utility module comprises a male coupling portion 31and a female coupling portion 63, wherein the male rotation axis and the female rotation axis of each of the first utility module and the second utility module coincide, and wherein the male coupling portion 31 and the female coupling portion 63 are coaxially disposed at different radii (figs. 5-6).
Regarding claim 4, Chen further discloses the locking members 33 are disposed at 90 degrees with respect to the locking recesses 64 of a respective utility module (marked-up fig. 6).
Regarding claim 5, Chen furhter dislcoses at an assembled, interlocked position, the second utility module is disposed over the first utility module such that side walls of both utility modules face at same orientation (marked-up fig. 6).
Regarding claim 6, Chen further discloses the second utility module comprising only one of the male coupling portion 31 and the female coupling portion 63, are articulated over the first utility module using one of the other one of the male coupling portion and the female coupling portion, and a second utility module comprising both of the male coupling portion and the female coupling portion can be articulated over the first utility module using both of the male coupling portion and the female coupling portion (figs. 6-7).
Regarding claim 7, Chen further discloses the laterally projecting locking members 33 of the male coupling portion 31 and the locking recesses 64 of the female coupling portion 63 are disposed parallel with regular edges of the first utility module and the second utility module, respectively (marked-up fig. 6).
Regarding claim 8, Chen further discloses the locking engagement takes place in one direction only, wherein the at least one of the locking recesses 64 is configured with a stopper 651, whereby engaging is unidirectional, such that the second utility module can be rotated into engagement with the first utility module in one direction only (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 10, Chen further discloses a footprint of the second utility module can be smaller or greater than a footprint of the first utility module (if one of the utility modules is put upside down) whereby only a center, inner most couple of a male-female coupling is configured for rotation engagement with one another (fig. 6).
Regarding claim 11, Chen further discloses one or both of the first utility module and the second utility module is a container (fig. 6).
Regarding claim 14, Chen further discloses at the first utility module, a topmost surface of the male coupling portion 31 is coplanar with a topmost portion of the female coupling portion 63, and wherein at the second utility module a bottommost surface of the male coupling portion 31 is coplanar with a bottommost portion of the female coupling portion 63 (marked-up fig. 6).
Regarding claim 18, Chen further discloses a surface of the locking members 33 of the male coupling portion 31 and a corresponding facing surface of the locking recesses 64 of the female coupling portion 63 is configured with a rotation preventing mechanism or stop 651 (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 21, Chen further discloses a top surface of the first container is configured with depressed gliding surfaces, having chamfered edges, capable of positioning the male coupling portion of the second utility module in a prior-to-locking position with respect to the female coupling portion of the first utility module (marked-up fig. 6).
Regarding claim 31, Chen further discloses a lid of the container is configured at an inside face thereof with an organizer 43 (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 33, Chen further discloses the container is configured with a braided paracord 70, detachably articulated to a portion of the container (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 36, Chen further discloses the container being configured with two or more secure-down arrangements 30, disposed at opposite sides of the container, capable of securing the container to a carrying platform (fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
822
862
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 6,209,725) in view of Grannis (US 1,312,626).
Regarding claim 12, Chen discloses all elements of the claimed invention as applied to claim 11 above but fails to disclose the container is configured for water-tight sealing, by a sealing gasket deposed at least at a lid of the container.
However, Grannis teaches a gasket 7 being provided to prevent any liquid from getting in between a lid and a container (figs. 2-3 and col. 1, lines 26-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have provided the device of Chen a gasket, to prevent any liquid from getting between the cover and the container, as taught by Grannis in col. 1, lines 26-35).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 6,209,725) in view of Wood (US 6,827,913).
Regarding claim 23, Chen further discloses a lid being securely locked over the container but fails to disclose the container being configured with a double locking mechanism for securely locking a lid over the container at a closed position, wherein a first locking mechanism of the container comprises at least a pair of side latches, each disposed at opposite sides of the container and where each latch is pivotally articulated at one of the lid and side wall of the container and configured for lock-engagement with a lock arrest configured at the other one of the lid and side wall of the container.
However, Wood teaches a container having a first locking mechanism 48 and a second locking mechanism 50 each disposed at opposite sides of the container and where each latch is pivotally articulated at one of the lid and side wall of the container and configured for lock-engagement with a lock arrest configured at the other one of the lid and side wall of the container (fig. 1 and col. 3, lines 15-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute a locking mechanism as, for example, taught by the Wood reference for the locking mechanism of Chen, to provide a more rapid and convenient means of securing and releasing the lid. Also, it has been held that when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 50-51, 148 USPQ 479, 483 (1966)).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 6,209,725) in view of Willis (US 7,510,094).
Regarding claim 19, Chen discloses all elements of the claimed invention except for the rotation preventing mechanism comprises mating ridges and depressions disposed over facing surfaces of the locking recesses of the female coupling portion, said rotation preventing mechanism configured for engagement when the first utility module and the second utility module are interlocked and upon applying axial displacement of the second utility module with respect the first utility module; such axial displacement occurs upon lifting an assembled utility assembly by the second utility module, the rotation preventing mechanism is configured to eliminate or substantially reduce the likelihood of unintentional rotational disengagement of the second utility module from the first utility module.
However, Willis teaches a container 1200 having a rotation preventing mechanism 1205, 1206 comprising mating ridges and depressions as claimed (figs. 11-12 and col. 6, lines 15-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have provided the rotation preventing mechanism of Chen, mating ridges and depressions, as taught by Willis, to prevent unintentional separations of the containers.
Claims 26 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 6,209,725) in view of Wood (US 6,827,913) as applied to claim 23 above, further in view of Grannis (US 1,312,626).
Regarding claims 26 and 29, the modified Chen discloses all elements of the claimed invention except for a second locking mechanism of the container comprises one or more of swing handles, each comprising a handle portion pivotally articulated at a side wall portion of the lid and comprising at respective ends thereof an arced arm projectable through a top surface of the lid and configurable between a locked position at which the handle is displaced against the lid and wherein each arced arm engages with an arresting aperture at a top portion of a side wall of the container, and an unlocked position wherein the handle is displaced from the top surface of the lid and wherein the arced arms disengage from the respective arresting aperture;
wherein the arced arm is eccentric and configured for increasing arresting engagement with the arresting aperture as it is pivotally displaced into its closed position, thus increasing sealing force of the lid over the container.
However, Grannis teaches a handle 15 having an arced arm 14 engaging an opening 6 (figs. 1 and 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have made the second locking mechanism of the modified Chen, arced arms attached to the handle, as taught by Grannis, to improve user convenience and simplify the lid removal by eliminating the need for a separate latch-release operation.
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
Prosecution Insights