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 § 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 1, 3, 5, 7-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshihiro (JP2017-218211) in view of Umemoto (JP 58-029947) further in view of Campbell (US 11,118,829).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshihiro (figs. 2-3 and 10-11) discloses a collapsible container 2, comprising:
a lower frame 4 including a rectangular bottom plate 14;
an upper frame 7 that has a frame shape identical to that of an outer rim of the lower frame 4 and includes a pair of first lateral surfaces 12 opposed to each other and a pair of second lateral surfaces 11 each connecting an end of one of the pair of first lateral surfaces 12 to an end of another of the pair of first lateral surfaces;
lateral plates 6 that are collapsibly supported between the lower frame 4 and the upper frame 7; and
a pair of lid plates 21 that is pivotably supported to the pair of second lateral surfaces 11 of the upper frame 7 and thus enables opening and closing of an opening of the upper frame 7,
the collapsible container 2 being collapsible to flat form when the lateral plates 6 are collapsed inwardly, wherein the pair of lid plates 21 include at least one connection arm 22 and at least one lid plate support portion 25 formed on the pair of second lateral surfaces 11.
Yoshihiro fails to disclose:
the at least one connection arm 22 of the pair of lid plates 21, being pivotably supported to a connection shaft 26 provided and supported to the at least one lid plate support portion 25 formed on the pair of second lateral surfaces 11,
the at least one connection arm 22 including hollow cylindrical bearings each receiving the connection shaft slidably inserted thereinto and includes a pair of engagement protrusions composed of a first engagement protrusion that is formed on an outer circumferential surface of at least one of the bearings and a second engagement protrusion that is formed on an outer circumferential surface of at least one of the bearings different from the at least one of the bearings on which the first engagement protrusion is formed and is different in position in a circumferential direction from the first engagement protrusion, the at least one lid plate support portion includes an angle restrictor disposed between the pair of engagement protrusions as viewed from an axis direction of the connection shaft, and the angle restrictor is interposed between the first engagement protrusion and the second engagement protrusion so as to restrict pivoting of the pair of the lid plates to both opening and closing directions of the pair of lid plates and retain the pair of lid plates at a prescribed opening angle; and
the opening angle varies from a horizontal state where the pair of lid plates closes the opening to the upper frame to 100 degrees to 110 degrees.
However, Umemoto teaches:
at least one connection arm 7 of a pair of lid plates including hollow cylindrical bearings each receiving a connection shaft 8 slidably inserted thereinto and includes a first engagement protrusion 10 formed on an outer circumferential surface of at least one of the bearings;
at least one lid plate support portion 4 including an angle restrictor 11 disposed between the pair of engagement protrusions as viewed from an axis direction of the connection shaft, and the angle restrictor is interposed so as to restrict pivoting of the pair of the lid plates to both opening and closing directions of the pair of lid plates and retain the pair of lid plates at a prescribed opening angle (figs. 2-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have designed the lid hinges of Yoshihiro, as taught by Umemoto, to provide lids that easily open and close and stay open.
Regarding the second engagement protrusion, Campbell teaches three bearings each having two engagement protrusions and an angle restrictor interposed between the first engagement protrusion and the second engagement protrusion (marked-up 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 each bearing of the modified Yoshihiro, two as taught by Campbell to allow the lids to rotate from the closed position toward the desired open positions as taught by Campbell in col. 6, lines 28-34.
Regarding the claimed angles, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
PNG
media_image1.png
421
741
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, the modified Yoshihiro further discloses when an external force of a given magnitude pivotal direction of the bearing is applied to the pair of lid plates being retained at the opening angle, the angle restrictor becomes disengaged from the first engagement protrusion or the second engagement protrusion, and thus the pair of lid plates is allowed to pivot freely (figs.2-4 of Umemoto).
Regarding claim 5, Yoshihiro further discloses on a rear surface of each of the pair of lid plates, a plurality of first ribs 46 parallel to the pair of first lateral surfaces and a plurality of second ribs 45 parallel to the pair of second lateral surfaces are formed in lattice form, and the plurality of first ribs has a protruding amount (i.e., number of ribs) from the each of the pair of lid plates larger than that of the plurality of second ribs (fig. 2).
Regarding claims 7-8, it is well known in the art to select visible/contrasting colors for safety or visibility. Selecting a color for visibility would have been an obvious matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 10, Yoshihiro further discloses the lateral plates include:
a pair of flip-up lateral plates 6 that is swingably supported to the pair of first lateral surfaces 12 and is configured to swing between an upright state of being perpendicularly upright with respect to the bottom plate and a laid-down state of being laid down to be overlaid on the bottom plate 14; and
a pair of divided lateral plates, each of which includes: an upper lateral plate swingably supported to a corresponding one of the pair of second lateral surfaces; a lower lateral plate swingably supported to the bottom plate 14; and
a hinge pivotably connecting a lower end of the upper lateral plate 9 to an upper end of the lower lateral plate 8, and which is configured to shift between a spread state where the upper lateral plate 9 and the lower lateral plate 8 are spread to be substantially flush with each other and a bent state where the upper lateral plate 9 and the lower lateral plate 8 are bent inwardly, and the collapsible container is collapsible to flat form when the pair of flip-up lateral plates 6 is brought to the laid-down state and the pair of divided lateral plates 9, 9 is brought to the bent state (figs. 1-5).
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshihiro (JP2017-218211) in view of Umemoto (JP 58-029947) and Campbell (US 11,118,829) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Masahiro (JP2010-280429).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Yoshihiro discloses all elements of the claimed invention as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose a plurality of the pairs of engagement protrusions being provided at different positions in the circumferential direction, and thus the pair of lid plates is retainable at a plurality of opening angles each being identical to the opening angle.
However, Yoshihiro teaches multiple engagement protrusions and corresponding notches 6, 7 being provided on a hinge (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 engagement protrusions of the modified Yoshihiro, at different positions in the circumferential direction, as taught by Yoshihiro, for providing the user with the convenience by allowing the lid to stay open at intermediate angles.
Regarding claim 4, the modified Yoshihiro discloses the opening angle varying from a horizontal state where the pair of lid plates closes the opening of the upper frame to 90° (fig. 4 of Umemoto) but fails to disclose the angle also being 135°.
However, Yoshihiro teaches multiple engagement protrusions and corresponding notches 6, 7 being provided on a hinge (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 engagement protrusions of the modified Yoshihiro, at different positions in the circumferential direction, as taught by Yoshihiro, for providing the user with the convenience by allowing the lid to stay open at intermediate angles.
Regarding the angel being 135°, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshihiro (JP2017-218211) in view of Umemoto (JP 58-029947) and Campbell (US 11,118,829) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Oberkircher (US 3,999,677).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Yoshihiro discloses all elements of the claimed invention except for at an edge of a rear surface of each of the pair of lid plates opposed to an upper end edge of a corresponding one of the pair of second lateral surfaces, an inclined surface that is inclined downward toward the opening in a state where the pair of lid plates is retained at the opening angle is formed over substantially an entire region of the edge along the corresponding one of the pair of second lateral surfaces.
However, Oberkircher teaches a lid having ribs 44 that are inclined downward (fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have provided the lid of the modified Yoshihiro, ribs, to rigidify the lids, as taught by Oberkircher in col. 3, lines 3-7).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshihiro (JP2017-218211) in view of Umemoto (JP 58-029947) and Campbell (US 11,118,829) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Kunifumi (JP2006-188282).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Yoshihiro discloses all elements of the claimed invention as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose an IC tag affixed to an inner side of each of the pair of first lateral surfaces or the pair of second lateral surfaces of the upper frame.
However, Kunifumi teaches an upper frame of a container being provided with IC tag 7 (fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have provided the modified device of Yoshihiro, IC tags in the upper frame, as taught by Kunifumi, for continently using and tracking the container. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the engagement protrusions of Campbell are formed on a common bearing and thus are different from the configuration recited in claim 1. However, Campbell teaches multiple bearing each having two engagement protrusions. Thus, the claimed first and second engagement protrusions are formed on different bearings of the hinge, as recited.
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 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.
Conclusion
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