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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 5-6, 13-14 and 16-20 stand withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 1 August 2025.
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 24 and 26 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.
Claim 24 states that the base is configured as part of the receiver. The base is already part of the transformative attachment mechanism (TAM) as stated in claim 22 from which claim 24 depends. This is a contradiction. The metes and bounds of claim 24 can’t be properly determined.
The Office views a receiver that is configured to hold one or more articles as a better description for the entire carrier device rather than as a component. However, claim 1 clearly establishes the receiver as one of three components of the carrier device. Does the receiver (component) actually hold one or more articles by itself? No. There is no explanation why applicant states this in claim 1. Likewise, in claim 22, is the base actually part of the TAM? Claim 1 could have stated that the device is a receiver having a base, panels and a TAM.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the transformative attachment mechanisms" in the third to last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Discussion of Degrees of Freedom
Office would like to add an illustration of the degrees of freedom for reference. The following is an annotated figure from IQSdirectory.com. The degrees of freedom have been labeled along the respective axis as X for up; Y for backward; Z for right; X’ for yaw; Y’ for roll; and Z’ for pitch.
PNG
media_image1.png
384
464
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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) 1-2, 4, 12, 15, 21-24 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by McKenzie (US 2009/0026208).
Re claim 1 and 26, McKenzie discloses a refuse container (kinetic carrier device), a kinetic carrier device having one degree of freedom (e.g., sliding the container along a floor in the horizontal or Y direction), comprising: a plurality of panels (panels or upper wall sections 26); a receiver (lower member 20) configured to hold one or more articles; and a transformative attachment mechanism (TAM)(panel or spine wall 50 and hinge 40 is shown as two hinges which attach the two panels 26, respectively to spine wall 50) configured to attach at least a pair of the plurality of panels to the receiver (spine wall 50 is attached to lower member 20), wherein the transformative attachment mechanism facilitates simultaneous (both panels 26 may move at the same time) movement of the plurality of panels in at least three-degrees-of-freedom (3DOF) with respect to the receiver (panels 26 move between open position shown in Fig. 10 and a closed position shown in Fig. 8 and 9) (when opening the panels 26, panels 26 rotate about the vertical or X’axis and translate in both horizontal directions of the Z-Y plane for 3DOF, one rotational and two translational in the two different horizontal directions).
Re claim 2, the transformative attachment mechanism is configured to guide a pair of adjacent panels (panels 26 are adjacent) to a closed configuration (see Fig. 8), thereby forming a chamber in the kinetic carrier device.
Re claim 4, the kinetic carrier device forms a cylindrical shape when configured in a closed configuration (see Fig. 8).
Re claim 12, he transformative attachment mechanism comprises a pivot member (knuckle portion of hinge) and a rotational member (pin or pintle portion of hinge).
Re claim 15, the plurality of panels comprises two semi-cylindrical panels (panels 26 are semi-cylindrical) configured to form a cylindrical shape when the device is in a closed configuration (see Fig. 8).
Re claim 21, the transformative attachment mechanism is configured to transform the at least three-degrees-of-freedom motion (opening or closing motion, see Fig. 10, 3 DOF previously discussed) to one-degree-of-freedom motion (closed position, see Fig. 8, 1 DOF previously discussed).
Re claim 22, the transformative attachment mechanism comprises at least one of: a hinge (hinges of hinge 40); a hinge mechanism (hinges of hinge 40); a slide mechanism; and a base (spline wall 50).
Re claim 23, the hinge mechanism is configured to pivotally attach the base (50) to an end of one of the plurality of panels (26).
Re claim 24, the base is configured as part of the receiver (insofar as claim 22 requires the base to be part of the TAM).
Re claim 26, the TAM is configured to transform movement of the plurality of panels from at least three DOF (when opening the panels 26, panels 26 rotate about the vertical or X’axis and translate in both horizontal directions of the Z-Y plane for 3DOF, one rotational and two translational in the two different horizontal directions) to one DOF (e.g., when the closed container is slid along the floor in one horizontal direction).
Claim(s) 1-2 and 21-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Putko (US 2016/0159515).
Re claim 1 and 26, Putko discloses a packaging (kinetic carrier device) as shown in Fig. 2 in collapsed (almost flat) condition and closed and assembled in Fig. 1, a kinetic carrier device having one degree of freedom (e.g., sliding the container along a floor in the horizontal or Y direction), comprising: a plurality of panels (panels include lid portion 30 and base portion 12); a receiver (or base) (rear sidewall 22) configured to hold one or more articles (when the receiver and the panels are in the closed, assembled condition of Fig. 1); and a transformative attachment mechanism (TAM)(hinges connecting panel 22 to panels 12 and 30) configured to attach at least a pair of the plurality of panels to the receiver (base 22), wherein the transformative attachment mechanism facilitates simultaneous (both panels 12 and 30 may move at the same time) movement of the plurality of panels in at least three-degrees-of-freedom (3DOF) with respect to the receiver (panels 12, 30 move between collapsed condition shown in Fig. 2 and an assembled condition shown in Fig. 1) (when assembling from the collapsed condition of Fig. 2 the panels 12, 30 rotate about the one of the horizontal axis (e.g., axis Y’) and translate in both directions of the X-Z plane for 3DOF, one rotational and two translational in the two different directions).
Re claim 2, the transformative attachment mechanism is configured to guide a pair of adjacent panels (panels 12, 30 are adjacent) to a closed configuration (see Fig. 1), thereby forming a chamber in the kinetic carrier device.
Re claim 21, the transformative attachment mechanism is configured to transform the at least three-degrees-of-freedom motion (assembling or collapsing motion, 3 DOF previously discussed) to one-degree-of-freedom motion (closed position, 1 DOF previously discussed).
Re claim 22, the transformative attachment mechanism comprises at least one of: a hinge (hinges 60 adjacent to panels 44, 20, 48, 40 and positioned away from base 22); a hinge mechanism (hinge 60 immediately adjacent to base 22); a slide mechanism; and a base (rear sidewall 22).
Re claim 23, the hinge mechanism (one of hinges 60 adjacent to base 22 and one of the panels 12 and 30) is configured to pivotally attach the base (22) to an end (edge of panel proximal to base 22) of one of the plurality of panels (panel 12 or 30).
Re claim 24, the base (22) is configured as part of the receiver (insofar as claim 22 requires the base to be part of the TAM).
Re claim 25, the hinge (hinges 60 adjacent to panels 44, 20, 48, 40 and positioned away from base 22) is configured to pivotally attach another end (edge of panel distal to base 22) of said one of the plurality of panels (12, 30) to an end of another one of the plurality of panels (panel 40, 20, or 44).
Re claim 26, the TAM is configured to transform movement of the plurality of panels from at least three DOF (when assembling from the collapsed condition of Fig. 2 the panels 12, 30 rotate about the one of the horizontal axis (e.g., axis Y’) and translate in both directions of the X-Z plane for 3DOF, one rotational and two translational in the two different directions) to one DOF (e.g., when the container in assembled and closed condition is slid along the floor in one horizontal direction).
For claim 22-25, an annotated Fig. 2 of Putko is included for clarity.
PNG
media_image2.png
564
694
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The limitation that states that the TAM facilitates simultaneous movement of the plurality of panels is not an indication that this is the only movement of the panels. The panels may move independently and still provide the facilitates simultaneous movement because nothing prevents a user from using two hands to move a plurality of panels simultaneously. The movement described is movement of the panels with respect to the receiver. Movement of the TAM is different than movement of the panels.
The Office has made an attempt in providing a degrees of freedom (DOF) reference and explain the respective three DOF and one DOF to assist in applicant’s understanding of the Office rejections.
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 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
Prosecution Insights