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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/21/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-3, 5-6 are pending.
Claim 1 is newly amended.
Claims 4 is canceled.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YABUTA (JP2014091552; Provided by applicant) in view of NAGAYA (JP2003034330; Provided by applicant) .
Regarding claim 1, YABUTA discloses, A collapsible container (10), comprising: a lower frame (11) including a rectangular bottom plate having long sides and short sides (Fig. 3) ; an upper frame (20) that has a frame shape and a circumferential edge identical in shape to an outer rim of the lower frame (Fig. 1) and includes a pair of first lateral surfaces opposed to each other (33) and a pair of second lateral surfaces (30) each connecting an end of one of the pair of first lateral surfaces to an end of another of the pair of first lateral surfaces; lateral plates (30, 33) that are collapsibly supported between the lower frame and the upper frame; and a pair of lid plates (34) that is pivotably supported to the pair of second lateral surfaces of the upper frame and thus enables opening and closing of an opening of the upper frame (Para 19: “a pair of rotating lids 34, 34 are assembled on the upper surface of the upper frame 20.”), the collapsible container being collapsible to flat form when the lateral plates are collapsed inwardly (para 21), wherein on the upper frame or the pair of lid plates, a plurality of positioning protrusions (21) is provided to protrude upward along the circumferential edge of the upper frame, an installation surface (Fig. 3) provided on a lower surface of the bottom plate includes: a first groove (Fig. 3; area of 11k) that is formed along an outer circumferential edge of the bottom plate and into which the plurality of positioning protrusions of a lower one of each pair of vertically adjacent collapsible containers stacked up is fitted; a second groove (FIG. 3, 11M) that is formed parallel to the short sides of the bottom plate and into which a part of the plurality of positioning protrusions of a lower one of each pair of vertically adjacent collapsible containers stacked in a pinwheel configuration is fitted (the second groove 11M can be arranged so that the position protrusion is fitted into the groove in pinwheel configuration) the installation surface has a ribbed structure in lattice form therein.
However, YABUTA does not disclose, a plurality of third grooves that is formed parallel to the long sides of the bottom plate and into which support rails provided on a support surface on which the collapsible container is placed are fitted.
NAGAYA discloses a lower tray (5) comprising plurality of third grooves (9) that is formed parallel to the long sides of the bottom plate (Fig. 1-3) and into which support rails provided on a support surface (para 14; fork of forklift) on which container is placed and wherein bottom surface of each of the third groove has ribbed structure (Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified YABUTA to incorporate a plurality of third grooves that is formed parallel to the long sides of the bottom plate and into which support rails provided on a support surface and ribbed structure remain on a bottom surface of each of the plurality of third grooves as taught by NAGAYA for the purpose of allowing forklifts or other support member to list/transport the container while also improving the strength of the area so it doesn’t break when lifting.
As a result of the modification, YABUTA as modified would have a plurality of third grooves that is formed parallel to the long sides of the bottom plate and into which support rails provided on a support surface on which the collapsible container is placed are fitted.
While, YABUTA as modified does not disclose, the plurality of third grooves is smaller in depth from the installation surface than the first groove and the second groove. It would have been obvious to try for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a plurality of third grooves that is smaller in depth from the installation surface than the first groove and the second groove as there are a finite number of predictable solutions with reasonable expectations of success (MPEP 2143-E), specifically to have same, small or large depth. Having a small depth increase the thickness of the area which would improve strength of the container when being lifted by a forklift.
The limitation “the collapsible container moves along the support rails, with the plurality of third grooves fitted over the support rails” is considered to be intended use. Examiner asserts that the recitation of intended use or purpose of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use or fulfilling said purpose, then it meets the claim. Herein, the collapsible container is capable of moving along the support rails when fitted over the support rail.
Regarding claim 2, YABUTA discloses, on upper parts of the pair of second lateral surfaces, a plurality of lid plate support portions (23) is formed to pivotably support bearings formed on the pair of lid plates, and the plurality of lid plate support portions functions also as the plurality of positioning protrusions (para 36).
Regarding claim 3, YABUTA appears to disclose, the plurality of lid plate support portions protrudes to a height equal to a protruding height of the plurality of positioning protrusions formed on the pair of lid plates (Fig. 1-3), and the first groove is equal in level difference from the installation surface to the second groove (Fig. 1-3), however, in the event, YABUTA does not disclose, this limitation, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the plurality of lid plate support portions protrudes to a height equal to a protruding height of the plurality of positioning protrusions formed on the pair of lid plates, and the first groove is equal in level difference from the installation surface to the second groove since such modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. This would allow all the projection to be on the same plate while allowing for snug fit that prevents any wabbling during handling of the container. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IVA).
Regarding claim 5, YABUTA discloses the lateral plates include: a pair of flip-up lateral plates (33) that is swingably supported at an upper end to the upper frame (para 20) and is configured to swing between an upright state of being perpendicularly upright with respect to the bottom plate along the pair of first lateral surfaces (para20, 21) and a laid-down state of being laid down to be overlaid on the bottom plate; and a pair of divided lateral plates (30), each of which includes: an upper lateral plate (31) that is swingably supported at an upper end to the upper frame and extends along a corresponding one of the pair of second lateral surfaces; a lower lateral plate (32) that is swingably supported at a lower end to the lower frame and extends along the corresponding one of the pair of second lateral surfaces; and a hinge (Fig. 2; Hinge in between 21, and 32) pivotably connecting a lower end of the upper lateral plate to an upper end of the lower lateral plate, and which is configured to shift between a spread state where the upper lateral plate and the lower lateral plate are spread to be flush with each other and a bent state where the upper lateral plate and the lower lateral plate are bent inwardly (para 21) , and the collapsible container is collapsible to flat form when the pair of flip-up lateral plates is brought to the laid-down state and the pair of divided lateral plates is brought to the bent state (para 21).
Regarding claim 6, YABUTA discloses, wherein the pair of first lateral surfaces forms a pair of short sides of the upper frame (Fig. 2), and the pair of second lateral surfaces forms a pair of long sides of the upper frame (Fig. 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicants argument filed 04/21/2026 is considered but not persuasive. The applicant argues that, no prior art discloses, ribbed structure on a bottom surface of each of the plurality of third grooves. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art of NAGAYA discloses the groove 9 which is recognized as third groove to have ribbed structure (See Fig. 4).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Smorgan (US 6508182) discloses a groove (between 6 and 8) parallel to a long side wherein ribbed structures are on the bottom surface of each of the groove.
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 SANJIDUL ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7670. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 -5:00.
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, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at 571-270-5531. 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.
/SANJIDUL ISLAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/CHUN HOI CHEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights