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 § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 4, and 15-17 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.
Stating “said band or strap is employed to pass through said passageway” in claim 2, lines 1-2 is effectively a positive recitation of the band or strap as a structural element. Whereas in claim 1, the band or strap is functionally claimed. Claim 2 should state that claim 2 is the combination including the band or strap. Office suggests replacing “wherein” in line 1 of claim 2 with “further comprising.”
Re claim 15, a passageway that is configured to allow a strap or band to pass, as stated in claim 1, would by definition of penetrating, then make the band or strap a penetrating fastener. The premise of claim 15, “not require any type of penetrating fastener” contradicts claim 1.
Re claim 16, the premise of claim 16 is close to claim 15 in stating “disassembly does not require removal of any type of penetrating fastener.” The premise of claim 15 contradicts claim 1.
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 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Foster (US 5529199).
Foster discloses a container for storing one or more items as content, comprising: a lower wall (bottom member 14) having a planar shape with two broad opposing sides, one of said broad opposing sides being an upward facing side, said upward facing side including a first channel (perimeter channel on upward facing side) and a first outer margin (portion extending radially outward from channel); an upper wall (top member 12) having a planar shape with two broad opposing sides, one of said broad opposing sides being a downward facing side, said downward facing side including a second channel (perimeter channel on downward facing side) and a second outer margin (portion extending radially outward from channel); a plurality of side walls (side members 40), each of said side walls having a planar shape, with two broad and opposing sides, and each side wall having a plurality of edge sides that are located in between said two broad opposing sides; and wherein said lower wall, said upper wall and said side walls are designed to be joined together to construct an assembled container that is designed to receive and enclose one or more items, and wherein a combination of said upper wall and said lower wall being further configured to include a plurality of apertures (holes 28, four each in each of top and bottom members), each of said apertures passing through one of said first outer margin and of said second outer margin, and wherein each of said apertures constituting a portion of a passageway, said passageway being configured to enable a band or strap to pass to through said passageway and to surround said assembled container.
Note that the band or strap is functionally claimed to work in conjunction with the passageway such that the passageway is configured to enable a band or strap to pass through the passageway. The band or strap is not a positive structural limitation.
Re claim 14, functional recitation of intended use of band or strap. The assembled container is configured such that one band or strap is the only fastener that seals the assembled container when the band or strap is under tension.
Re claim 15, if applicant were to state that the fastener is not a screw, bolt or rivet. This condition would be met insofar as the assembled container can be used without locking device 26. There is no adhesive used in Foster.
Re claim 16, insofar as the assembled container can be used without locking device 26, a band or strap, or any other penetrating fastener, the limitation is met. The assembled container is configured for disassembly and transportation to another location for reassembly and reuse, after unsealing said assembled container.
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) 3, 5-6, 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster in view of Akhavan-Tabassi (US 2018/0222628) (Tabassi).
Re claim 3, Foster includes a plurality of corner components (corner columnar members 30). The materials specified for the corner members 30 is plastic or metal, not wood. Tabassi teaches wood corner components (for example, edge elements 1212 shown in Fig. 16A, 16B)(“wood-based materials” see paragraph [65], lines 1-4). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the material to be wood as a light weight, readily available, and relatively inexpensive construction material.
Re claim 5, said corner component of Foster includes a cavity and a protrusion that are designed for joining said corner component with at least one of said side walls. See cross section of Fig. 4 for corner member construction. Said corner component of Tabassi includes a cavity and a protrusion that are designed for joining said corner component with at least one of said side walls, see for example, cross section of Fig. 16C for cavity (groove) and protrusion which is adjacent to the cavity.
Re claim 6, the side walls of Foster fail to disclose a channel. Tabassi teaches a channel on the side edge of the side wall as is best seen in Fig. 1C and 1D. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the side walls to have a channel to lock the corner components with the side walls to prevent lateral sliding or detaching movement.
Re claim 12, at least one of said corner components or at least one of said walls is cut from a material of a type that can be cut via a computer numerical controlled (CNC) machine. Wood is a material of a type that can be cut via a computer numerical controlled (CNC) machine.
Re claim 13, wood is both reusable and recyclable.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster in view of Akhavan-Tabassi as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Madock (US 5645329).
The combination fails to disclose two extended portions of the inner portion. Madock teaches a similarly constructed container as Foster with a lower wall, an upper wall and corner components. The upper and lower walls have respective channels which receive extended portions (projections 30, 32, 40, 42, 48, 50, 64, 66), one at each end of a corner component. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the extended portions to provide male/female engagement to provide proper alignment of the wall and corner parts and to provide a secure attachment mechanism to prevent inadvertent detachment of the parts.
Claim(s) 2 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster in view of Overton, III (US 3414152) (Overton).
Foster fails to disclose the band or strap. Overton discloses a band or strap 132), the strap passes through a passageway formed by wire 46. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Foster to include a band or strap to provide a fastening, wrapping or securing means for preventing the detachment of sidewalls, lower wall and upper wall as an assembled unit.
Re claim 17, the band or strap can be a locking strap, insofar as it locks walls in an assembled position.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster in view of Overton as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Beale (US 6155772).
The combination fails to indicate the constricting force rating of the strap. Beale teaches a lift-liner with nine reinforcing bands and the straps collectively apply 6000 pounds of lift force (666 pounds per band). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the rating of the strap to be at least 666 pounds (200 ponds or greater to meet claim 4) to provide a sufficient force to prevent breakage or rupture when lifting the container.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster in view of Corwin et al. (US 2979027) (Corwin).
Foster fails to disclose the external anchor. Corwin teaches an external anchor (eye bolt, near 25). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add an external anchor to hold the strap in proper position to hold the alignment of the strap such that the constricting force of the strap is applied to the proper locality.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster in view of Barry (US 2833005).
Foster fails to disclose the internal anchor. Barry teaches an internal anchor (parts 32, 33, 34). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add an internal anchor to hold the strap in proper position to hold the alignment of the strap such that the constricting force of the strap is applied to the proper locality.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN J CASTELLANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4535. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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.
sjc/STEPHEN J CASTELLANO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733