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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Fig. 1-5) in the reply filed on 12/18/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Edwards (US 4896771).
Regarding claim 1, Edwards discloses, A container (10) comprising: a base including base walls (See annotated fig. below) and a cavity (See annotated fig. below) defined by the base walls; a receptacle on one of the base walls; and a retainer (See annotated fig. below; 26) selectively coupled to the receptacle and configured to support a plurality of tools within the cavity, the base being sized to receive only a single retainer (Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
330
560
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Edwards a discloses a retainer.
The limitation “the retainer is configured to support up to ten oscillating multi tool blades.” 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 retainer of Edwards is considered to be capable of support up to ten oscillating multi tool blades.
Claim(s) 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ito (US 7121405).
Regarding claim 18, Ito discloses, A retainer (103) configured to be secured within a container (Fig. 27) , the retainer comprising: a base portion (See annotated fig. below) ;an elongated body (See annotated fig. below) extending from the base portion; and an insert portion (See annotated fig. below) extending from the base portion and including a plurality of tabs (108) , the plurality of tabs configured to extend through a wall of the container and form a snap-fit connection (Fig. 31-36; Col. 19; lines 34-36) with the retainer, each tab having a stop (109) extending normally from an end of the tab, the stops configured to bear against an outer surface of the wall of the container (Fig. 34-35).
The limitation “configured to receive a stack of oscillating multi tool blades” 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.
Regarding claim 20, Ito disclose, a stand (See annotated fig. below) positioned between the plurality of tabs (108) and configured to bear against a portion of the container (Fig. 33).
PNG
media_image2.png
325
308
media_image2.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.
Claim(s) 2-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards as applied to claim 1 in view of Ito (US 7121405).
Regarding claim 2, 3, and 4 Edwards does not appear to disclose, the retainer is selectively coupled to the receptacle by a snap-fit connection, and wherein the receptacle includes one or more apertures extending from the cavity to an outer surface of the base, and wherein the retainer includes one or more tabs extending through the one or more apertures and wherein the base includes a pocket formed on the outer surface, and wherein portions of the one or more tabs are received in the pocket.
Ito discloses a base comprising a receptacle (fig. 28; A), a shaft (103) that is selectively coupled to the receptacle by a snap-fit connection (Fig. 31-36; Col. 19; lines 34-36) and wherein the receptacle includes one or more apertures (Fig. 31; aperture through which 108 enters) extending from the cavity to an outer surface of the base (Fig. 33), and wherein the retainer includes one or more tabs (108) extending through the one or more apertures and wherein the base includes a pocket (106) formed on the outer surface, and wherein portions of the one or more tabs are received in the pocket (Col. 19; lines 18-21; Fig. 35).
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 Edwards to incorporate the retainer is selectively coupled to the receptacle by a snap-fit connection, and wherein the receptacle includes one or more apertures extending from the cavity to an outer surface of the base, and wherein the retainer includes one or more tabs extending through the one or more apertures and wherein the base includes a pocket formed on the outer surface, and wherein portions of the one or more tabs are received in the pocket as taught by Ito as it allows for easier attachment between the retainer and the receptacle since its can be easily pushed to be snapped into locked or unlocked positioned.
Regarding claim 5, and 6 Edwards does not disclose, a locating feature on the one of the base walls to engage the retainer and the locating feature includes a boss located on an inner surface of the base and at partially surrounding the one or more apertures, and wherein the retainer includes one or more legs positioned radially outward of the one or more tabs and surrounding the boss.
Ito discloses a locating feature (See annotated fig. below) on the one of the base walls to engage the retainer, and the locating feature includes a boss located on an inner surface of the base (Fig. 29) and at partially surrounding the one or more apertures (Fig. 29, 31), and wherein the retainer includes one or more legs (107) positioned radially outward of the one or more tabs and surrounding the boss.
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 Burns to incorporate a locating feature on the one of the base walls to engage the retainer and the locating feature includes a boss located on an inner surface of the base and at partially surrounding the one or more apertures, and wherein the retainer includes one or more legs positioned radially outward of the one or more tabs and surrounding the boss as taught by Ito as it would help align the retainer when snapping retaining to the base while also locking the retainer at a predetermined level.
PNG
media_image3.png
312
543
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Edwards as modified discloses, the one or more apertures include two apertures (See annotated fig. below) and the one or more tabs includes two tabs(108), wherein the locating feature includes a bridge separating the two apertures (Fig. 31; bridge between apertures through which 108 pass through), and wherein the retainer includes a stand (See annotated fig. below) positioned between the two tabs and engaging the bridge.
PNG
media_image2.png
325
308
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Edwards as modified discloses, a lid (14) movably coupled to the base to selectively enclose the cavity (lid coupled to body via hinge 40).
Regarding claim 9 and 10, Edwards as modified discloses, the retainer includes a top portion that contacts the lid when the lid is in a closed position (Fig. 2) and the lid includes a pocket shaped to receive the top portion (Fig. 2; element 36).
Regarding claim 11, Edwards does not disclose, the retainer includes a base portion, an insert portion extending from the base portion in a first direction, and a main body portion extending from the base portion in a second direction that is opposite the first direction, wherein the insert portion is releasably coupled to the receptacle
Ito discloses, the retainer includes a base portion, an insert portion (See annotated fig. below) extending from the base portion in a first direction, and a main body portion (See annotated fig. below) extending from the base portion in a second direction that is opposite the first direction, wherein the insert portion is releasably coupled to the receptacle(Fig. 31-36; Col. 19; lines 34-36).
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 Edwards to incorporate the retainer mechanism includes a base portion, an insert portion extending from the base portion in a first direction, and a main body portion extending from the base portion in a second direction that is opposite the first direction, wherein the insert portion is releasably coupled to the receptacle as taught by Ito as it can be easily pushed to be snapped into locked or unlocked positioned.
The limitation “wherein the main body portion is configured to receive the plurality of tools” 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, Edwards as modified has a spindle that he capable of receive the plurality of tools.
Claim(s) 13-15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards (US 4896771) in view of Ito (US 7121405).
Regarding claim 13 and 14, Edwards discloses, A container comprising: a base including base walls (See annotated fig. below) and a cavity defined by the base walls; a receptacle (See annotated fig. below) on one of the base walls; and a retainer (See annotated fig. below)
PNG
media_image4.png
330
560
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, Edwards does not disclose, a retainer selectively received by the receptacle via a snap-fit connection and the receptacle includes two apertures extending from the cavity to an outer surface of the base, and wherein the retainer includes two opposing and outwardly biased tabs extending through the two apertures.
Ito discloses a receptacle (fig. 28; A), a shaft (103) that is selectively coupled to the receptacle by a snap-fit connection (Fig. 31-36; Col. 19; lines 34-36) and wherein the receptacle two apertures (See annotated fig. below) extending from the cavity to an outer surface of the base (Fig. 33), and wherein the retainer includes two opposing and outwardly biased tabs (108) extending through the two apertures (Col. 19; lines 28-36).
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 Edwards to incorporate a retainer selectively received by the receptacle via a snap-fit connection and the receptacle includes two apertures extending from the cavity to an outer surface of the base, and wherein the retainer includes two opposing and outwardly biased tabs extending through the two apertures as taught by Ito since its can be easily pushed to be snapped into locked or unlocked positioned.
The limitation “configured to support a stack of oscillating multi tool blades.” 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, Edwards as modified has a spindle that he capable of receive the plurality of tools.
PNG
media_image5.png
183
315
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Edwards does not disclose, a locating feature (See annotated fig. below; or Fig. 31; bridge between apertures through which 108 pass through ) on the one of the base walls to engage the retainer.
Ito discloses Ito discloses a locating feature (See annotated fig. below; and Fig. 31; bridge between apertures through which 108 pass through ) on the one of the base walls to engage the retainer.
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 Edwards to incorporate locating feature as taught by Ito as it would help align the retainer when snapping retaining to the base while also locking the retainer at a predetermined level.
PNG
media_image3.png
312
543
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Edwards as modified discloses, the locating feature includes a bridge separating the two apertures (Fig. 31; bridge between apertures through which 108 pass through), and wherein the retainer includes a stand (See annotated fig. below) positioned between the two tabs and engaging the bridge.
PNG
media_image2.png
325
308
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards-Ito as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Normans (US D711973).
Regarding claim 16 Edwards disclose, the locating feature includes a boss located on an inner surface of the base (See annotated fig. of claim 15) and at partially surrounding the one or more apertures, but does not disclose, wherein the retainer includes two legs positioned radially outward of the one or more tabs and surrounding the boss.
While Edwards as modified does not disclose, the retainer including two legs. Norman discloses a retainer comprising two legs (See annotated fig. below).
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 Edwards to incorporate two legs as taught by Norman for the purpose of saving material and cost by having separate legs made by removal of material.
PNG
media_image6.png
359
392
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito as applied to claim 18 in view of Norman (US D711973).
Regarding claim 19, Ito does not disclose, a set of legs positioned radially outwardly of the plurality of tabs and configured to bear against an inner surface of the wall of the container. Norman discloses a retainer comprising two legs (See annotated fig. of claim 16).
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 Edwards to incorporate two legs as taught by Norman for the purpose of saving material and cost by having separate legs made by removal of material.
Conclusion
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
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736