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 .
This action is written in response to the amendment filed 02/16/20226
Claims 1-5, 7 and 9-11 have been amended and claim 12 has been added
Claims 1-12 are presented for examination
This action is Final
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.
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(s) 1 and 3-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeNola (US 5,529,187 in view of Burda et al. (US 10,906,688).
Claim 1. Kuhn discloses a transport box 100 comprising:
upper and lower openings (fig. 5); and
at least three closure flaps 42, 44, 46, 48, 52, 54, 56, 58 at each of the upper and lower openings, of the box 20,
wherein at least two of the closure flaps 52, 54 of at least one of the upper and lower openings comprise object retaining elements 51, 53 for retaining objects (fig. 1).
Kuhn fails to disclose corresponding coupling tools used to mate the object retaining elements. DeNola discloses a transport box comprising:
wherein a free end of each object retaining element comprises at least one coupling tool 38, 40 configured to couple to a corresponding coupling tool from an opposite object element (col. 3, ll. 9-20; fig. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the object retaining elements and its placement inside the transport box to include the coupling tools of DeNola to assist in maintaining the position of the retaining elements when loaded with a product.
DeNola discloses openings in the transport box but fails to disclose cuts. Burda teaches wherein each element for retaining objects comprises a plurality of cuts (14a, 14b, 14c) through a flat face of that element for retaining objects (col. 6, ll. 40-50). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the openings of DeNola to include the cuts of Burda.
In order to equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness-type rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art. In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958). Burda represents evidence that cuts in blanks for maintaining the postion of the stored products were art-recognized equivalent structures for object openings. Therefore, because these two holders were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the cut for the wider opening form. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Claim 3. Kuhn-DeNola-Burda discloses the transport box of claim 1, wherein each coupling tool is configured as at least one perpendicular cut to the free end of that object element (DeNola; fig. 2a, 3)
Claim 4. Kuhn-DeNola-Burda discloses the transport box of claim 1, wherein cuts the plurality of cuts are parallel to a fold 96 of a corresponding closure flap (DeNola; fig. 2b).
Claims 5, 8. Kuhn-DeNola-Burda discloses the transport box of claim 1, wherein the plurality of cuts of at least one object retaining element includes a plurality of adjacent cuts that longitudinally extend in a common direction (DeNola; fig. 2b).
Claim 6. Kuhn-DeNola-Burda discloses the transport box of claim 5, wherein each adjacent cut in the plurality of adjacent cuts includes an end point that is horizontally displaced from corresponding end points of adjacent cuts that immediately above and immediately below that adjacent cut within the plurality of adjacent cuts (DeNola; fig. 2b).
Claim 7. Kuhn-DeNola-Burda discloses the transport box of claim 1, wherein the plurality of cuts (14a, 14b, 14c) extends only partially through a complete length of a respective closure flap (DeNola; fig. 2b).
Claim 9. Kuhn-DeNola-Burda discloses the transport box of claim 1, wherein at least one object retaining element is conformed at a respective closure flap (DeNola; fig. 2b).
Claim 10. Kuhn-DeNola-Burda discloses the transport box of claim 1, wherein at least one object retaining element and a surface of a respective closure flap are substantially coextensive in area (DeNola; fig. 2b).
Claim 12. Kuhn-DeNola-Burda disclose the transport box of claim 1, wherein the at least one coupling tool is configured to couple to the corresponding coupling tool displaced from the upper and lower openings within a volume defined by the transport box when the transport box is in an assembled state (DeNola; fig. 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 11 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but in view of the amendment the search has been updated, new prior art has been identified and applied, and a new rejection has been made.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 RAVEN COLLINS whose telephone number is (571)270-1672. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm EST.
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.
/RAVEN COLLINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/Anthony D Stashick/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights