DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
1. 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.
2. Claims 15 and 20 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.
Regarding claim 15, it is unclear if the term “a first protrusion” is to find proper antecedent basis with the same term in claim 14.
Further regarding claim 15, it is unclear what the first and second members comprise. Examiner notes there is support in the Specification for these terms (paras. [0051] and [0059]); however, no element number is provided each. Accordingly it is not clear what structures are encompassed by the terms. Examiner encourages Applicant to amend the claims to better define the structure based on the exact terms used in the Specification for elements identified in the Drawings.
Regarding claim 20, it is unclear how the lid pivoting to the first state with the latch in the first position includes the latch transitioning, without user input, from the first position to the second position and back to the first position. Examiner notes the term “user input” finds support in the Specification (paras. [0043] and [0064]); however, such is not sufficiently described. Examiner encourages Applicant to amend the claims to better define the structure based on the exact terms used in the Specification for elements identified in the Drawings.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-6, 10-14, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 10 2016 104 982 (Huizingh) in view of US 6,508,495 (Riley).
Regarding claim 1, Huizingh teaches an apparatus comprising:
a base (2) defining a cavity (interior space of 2 accessed by opening 12);
a lid (14) coupled to the base and pivotable between a first state in which the cavity is enclosed by the lid and a second state in which the cavity is exposed (hinged connection between the lid and base explicitly taught in para. [0053]; see attached translation);
a latch (20) comprising a first portion (main body portion comprising 34 and 36), a second portion (locking hook 22 comprising bar 44 and surface 48), and a third portion (not taught), wherein each of the second and third (not taught) portions interact with the base when the lid is in the first state so as to discourage the lid from transitioning to the second state (see receipt of beam 44 of locking hook 22 received in opening 56 of receptacle 24 in para. [0064]); and
a resilient member (50) disposed between the latch and the lid such that moving the first portion of the latch so as to compress the resilient member moves each of the second and third portions (not taught) of the latch away from the base (explicitly described in para. [0069]).
Huizingh as applied fails to teach the latch comprising a third portion.
Riley, analogous to containers with radially sliding latches, teaches it is known to provide a third portion in addition to a second portion (see 42c in Figure 2; see teaching of “one or more legs 42c” in col. 3, line 66 through col. 4, line 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the latch of Huizingh, providing a third portion as taught by Riley, motivated by the an additional interlocking engagement, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
Furthermore, regarding the physical combination, the question is not whether the prior art devices can be physically combined, but whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine different features or elements of known devices in a predictable way. See Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1013 (Fed. Cir. 1983): "There is a distinction between trying to physically combine the two separate apparatus disclosed in two prior art references on the one hand, and on the other hand trying to learn enough from the disclosures of the two references to render obvious the claims in suit. ...Claims may be obvious in view of a combination of references, even if the features of one reference cannot be substituted physically into the structure of the other reference." See MPEP 2145(III).
Regarding claim 2, the latch is movable between a first position (Huizingh Figure 1) and a second position (Huizingh Figure 2), wherein the second and third portions of the latch are further from the base in the second position than the first position (Huizingh locking hook 22 is displaced radially outwardly in Huizingh Figure 1; see Huizingh para. [0069]).
Regarding claim 3, the resilient member biases the latch towards the first position (see Huizingh para. [0068]).
Regarding claim 4, the first portion of the latch moves in a same direction as the second and third portions of the latch (the latch of Huizingh in view of Riley comprises an integral structure, and thus all portions move in the same direction).
Regarding claim 5, Huizingh in view of Riley fails to explicitly teach that with the lid in the first state, the direction is parallel with a length of the lid.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the latch of Huizingh in view of Riley, locating it such that it moves parallel to the length of the lid, motivated by an obvious change in the location of the parts of the invention, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. A rearrangement of the parts of the prior art is obvious, absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Regarding claim 6, the first portion of the latch is coupled to each of the second portion and the third portion (the latch of Huizingh in view of Riley comprises an integral structure, and thus each of the second and third portions, i.e. the hooks, are coupled to the first portion, i.e. the main body of the latch).
Regarding claim 7, the second portion of the latch includes a first member (Huizingh 44; see Figure 2) extending from the first portion of the latch and a second member (Huizingh 48; see Figure 2) extending at an angle from the first member, and wherein the third portion of the latch includes a third member (also Huizingh 44, as it would comprise a second, duplicated locking hook) extending from the first portion of the latch and a fourth member (also Huizingh 48, as it would comprise a second, duplicated locking hook) extending at an angle from the third member.
Regarding claim 10, the apparatus is a tool box (Examiner notes no physical structure is read into the term “tool box” beyond that which is explicitly claimed; the container is capable of holding tools in an interior space).
Regarding claim 11, Huizingh teaches an apparatus comprising:
a base (2) defining a cavity (interior space of 2 accessed by opening 12);
a lid (14) coupled to the base and pivotable between a first state and a second state (hinged connection between the lid and base explicitly taught in para. [0053]; see attached translation); and
a latch (20) coupled to the lid and movable between a first position (Huizingh Figure 1) and a second position (Huizingh Figure 2) such that the latch is configured to, with the lid in the first state, lock or unlock the lid relative to the base (Huizingh locking hook 22 is displaced radially outwardly in Huizingh Figure 1; see Huizingh para. [0069]),
wherein the latch is biased towards the first position and movable in a direction (see Huizingh para. [0068]; see Figures 1 and 4 noting the movement is parallel to the lid) parallel with a length of the lid (not taught),
wherein the latch includes a first portion (main body portion comprising 34 and 36), a second portion extending from the first portion (locking hook 22 comprising bar 44 and surface 48), and a third portion extending from the first portion, and
wherein the second and third (not taught) portions are configured to be able to contact the base when the latch is in the first position.
and a third portion extending from the first portion.
Huizingh as applied fails to teach:
a) the latch comprising a third portion; and
b) the latch moveable in a direction parallel with a length of the lid.
Regarding limitation (a), Riley, analogous to containers with radially sliding latches, teaches it is known to provide a third portion in addition to a second portion (see 42c in Figure 2; see teaching of “one or more legs 42c” in col. 3, line 66 through col. 4, line 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the latch of H, providing a third portion as taught by Riley, motivated by the an additional interlocking engagement, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
Furthermore, regarding the physical combination, the question is not whether the prior art devices can be physically combined, but whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine different features or elements of known devices in a predictable way. See Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1013 (Fed. Cir. 1983): "There is a distinction between trying to physically combine the two separate apparatus disclosed in two prior art references on the one hand, and on the other hand trying to learn enough from the disclosures of the two references to render obvious the claims in suit. ...Claims may be obvious in view of a combination of references, even if the features of one reference cannot be substituted physically into the structure of the other reference." See MPEP 2145(III).
Regarding limitation (b), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the latch of Huizingh in view of Riley, locating it such that it moves parallel to the length of the lid, motivated by an obvious change in the location of the parts of the invention, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. A rearrangement of the parts of the prior art is obvious, absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Regarding claim 12, the latch is configured such that, when the lid is in the second state, releasing the lid from the second state results in the lid being in the first state and the latch being in the first position (Examiner notes Huizingh Figure 1 whereby it can be seen the lid would fall back to the container under gravity after being lifted as it is located on the top of the container, and the latch is taught to return to the first position from energy stored within spring 50).
Regarding claim 13, the latch is biased towards the first position by a spring (50) disposed between the latch and a portion of the lid (see para. [0068]).
Regarding claim 14, the second portion of the latch includes a first protrusion extending towards the base (Huizingh 44; see Figure 2), and the third portion of the latch includes a second protrusion extending towards the base (also Huizingh 44, as it would comprise a second, duplicated locking hook).
Regarding claim 16, the base includes a first protruding edge (Huizingh receptacle 24) and a second protruding edge (a duplicate of 24 as modified above with regard to claim 11 to provide a third portion as a duplicate of the second portion), and wherein, when the latch is in the first position, the first protrusion of the second portion of the latch is able to contact the first protruding edge and the second protrusion of the second portion of the latch is able to contact the second protruding edge (in the locked configuration of Figure 4, second portion 48 contacts the edge defining opening 56; see Huizingh para. [0068]).
Regarding claim 17, Huizingh teaches a method comprising:
transitioning a first portion of a latch (20) of a container from a first position (Figure 4) to a second position (Figure 1) of the latch such that second and third (not taught) portions of the latch are moved away from a base of the container (explicitly described in para. [0069]), wherein the second and third (not taught) portions extend from the first portion, wherein the latch is coupled to a lid of the container and is biased towards the first position (explicitly described in para. [0068]), wherein the lid is coupled to the base of the container (by way of the hinged connection between the lid and base explicitly taught in para. [0053]; see attached translation);
pivoting (hinged connection between the lid and base explicitly taught in para. [0053]; see attached translation), with the latch in the second position, the lid from a first state to a second state, wherein the lid in the first state encloses a cavity of the base and the lid in the second state exposes the cavity (raising the lid by pivoting about the hinges to open the interior space); and
releasing the lid in the second state thereby allowing the lid to pivot to the first state with the latch in the first position (the latch will return to the first position under bias from the spring as taught in [0068]).
Regarding claim 18, with the latch in the first position, the second and third portions of the latch are each able to contact the base (Examiner notes the limitation is not read such that the engagement is after release from the second position to the first position; the locked position is shown in Figure 4; taught in para. [0068]).
5. Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 10 2016 104 982 (Huizingh) in view of US 6,508,495 (Riley) as applied above to claim 1, and further in view of US 3,438,480 (Chabrelot).
Regarding claim 8, Huizingh in view of Riley as applied above fails to teach the container further comprising a handle pivotable relative to the lid between a carrying position and a stowed position.
Chabrelot, analogous to containers, teaches a pivotable handle (34) which can move between a carrying position (Figure 1) and a stowed position (Figure 3). The handle is recessed to permit stacking of containers (col. 3, lines 32-39).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container of Huizingh in view of Riley, providing a pivoting handle as taught by Chabrelot, motivated by the benefit of providing a means to carry the container which also permits stacking of containers, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
Regarding claim 9, the lid includes an edge configured to receive the handle in the stowed position (see edge of Chabrelot recess 36 on front wall edge 16 in Figure 1).
6. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 10 2016 104 982 (Huizingh) in view of US 6,508,495 (Riley) as applied above to claim 17, and further in view of US 2012/0080432 (Bensman).
Regarding claim 19, Huizingh in view of Riley as applied above fails to teach transitioning the first portion of the latch from the first position to the second position includes forcing the first portion towards a handle of the container, wherein the handle is pivotable relative to the lid.
Bensman, analogous to hinged closures with latches, teaches a pivoting handle (28).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container of Huizingh in view of Riley as applied above, providing a pivotable handle as taught by Bensman, motivated by the benefit of providing a means to carry the container, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
After such modification, the clearance of the handle relative to the container body would allow for the latch to be moved in the direction of the handle when moving from the first position to the second position. Examiner notes Bensman Figure 7, whereby handle (28) is clearly shown spaced from the container side wall, and would be even more spaced when extending horizontally therefrom, e.g. the position seen in Figure 12. Upon such modification to the container of Huizingh in view of Riley, such spacing of the handle from the side wall would allow the latch of Huizingh to move radially outwardly, i.e. moving from the first position to the second position, towards the handle.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Examiner notes that while claims 15 and 20 are not rejected under 35 USC 102 or 103, allowability thereof cannot be indicated at this time due to the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) for indefiniteness.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES N SMALLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4547. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am to 6:00 pm.
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at (571) 270-5055. 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.
/JAMES N SMALLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3733