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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 4, “side edge” should be --side edge of the pair of opposing side edges--,
In line 7, “end edge” should be --end edge of the pair of opposing end edges--,
In line 8, “each side extension flap” should be --each of the plurality of side extension flaps”,
In line 9, “end of each of the plurality of opposing side panels” should be --opposing end of the opposing ends of each of the pair of opposing side panels--,
In line 10, “each gusset” should be --each of the plurality of gussets--,
In line 10, “a corresponding side extension flap” should be --a corresponding side extension flap of the plurality of side extension flaps--, and
In line 11, “adjacent end panel” should be --adjacent end panel of the pair of opposing end panels--.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1, “each gusset” should be --each of the plurality of gussets--,
In line 1, “a side extension flap” should be --the corresponding side extension flap--, and
In line 2, “an adjacent end panel” should be --the adjacent end panel--.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1, “each gusset” should be --each of the plurality of gussets--.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1, “each gusset” should be --each of the plurality of gussets--.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1, “each gusset” should be --each of the plurality of gussets--.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1, “each gusset” should be --each of the plurality of gussets--, and
In line 2, “its associated side extension flap and end panel” should be --the corresponding side extension flap and the adjacent end panel--.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In lines 1-2, “each side extension flap” should be --each of the plurality of side extension flaps--.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1, “each buckle-type locking mechanism” should be --each of the buckle-type locking mechanisms--.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 13, “each tongue” should be --each of the tongues--.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1, “each end panel” should be --each of the pair of opposing end panels--.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1, “each tongue is” should be --each of the tongues are--,
In line 2, “a corresponding vertical slot in an associated end panel” should be --a corresponding vertical slot of the pair of vertical slots in an associated end panel of the pair of opposing end panels--, and
In lines 2-3, “associated slit” should be --associated vertical slit --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wainberg (US 3,191,845 A).
Regarding claim 1, Wainberg teaches a storage bin for retaining a product, the storage bin comprising:
(a) a bottom panel (34) having a pair of opposing side edges and a pair of opposing end edges (FIG. 6);
(b) a pair of opposing side panels (35, 36), each of the pair of opposing side panels being connected to a corresponding side edge of the pair of corresponding side edges of the bottom panel through an associated fold line, each of the pair of opposing side panels having opposing ends (FIG. 6, 7);
(c) a pair of opposing end panels (37, 38), each of the pair of opposing end panels being connected to a corresponding end edge of the pair of opposing end edges of the bottom panel through an associated fold line (FIG. 6, 7);
(d) a plurality of side extension flaps (40), each of the plurality of side extension flaps being connected to a corresponding opposing end of the opposing ends of each of the pair of opposing side panels through a corresponding fold line (FIG. 6-9); and
(e) a plurality of gussets (44, 45), each of the plurality of gussets extending between a corresponding side extension flap of the plurality of side extension flaps and an adjacent end panel of the pair of opposing end panels (FIG. 8) (column 4 line 35-65 and FIG. 6-9).
Regarding claim 2, Wainberg teaches the storage bin of claim 1 above, wherein the storage bin is constructed form a one-piece flattened blank (column 4 lines 35-65 and FIG. 6).
Regarding claim 3, Wainberg teaches the storage bin of claim 2 above, wherein the storage bin is configured to be manipulated between and assembled state and a flattened state (column 4 line 35-65 and FIG. 6-9).
Regarding claim 4, Wainberg teaches the storage bin of claim 3 above, wherein the one-piece flattened blank is manufactured out of a waterproof material (column 4 lines 28-34, 57-65).
Regarding claim 6, Wainberg teaches the storage bin of claim 3 above, wherein each of the plurality of gussets is connected to the corresponding side extension flap and the adjacent end panel through corresponding fold lines (column 4 line 35-65 and FIG. 6-9).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wainberg, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Miller et al. (US 5,114,034 A, hereinafter Miller).
Regarding claim 5, Wainberg teaches the storage bin of claim 4 above, but fails to teach the one-piece flattened blank being manufactured of a corrugated plastic material.
Miller teaches an analogous storage bin for retaining a product, wherein the storage bin is configured to be manipulated between an assembled state and a flattened state and between the flattened state and the assembled state. Miller further teaches that analogous storage bins are known and desirable in the prior art to be manufactured of a corrugated plastic material in order to ensure selective and repeated manipulation between the assembled and flattened states (column 1 lines 53-59, column 3 lines 17-30).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Wainberg by manufacturing the one-piece flattened blank out of a corrugated plastic material, as taught by Miller, in order to ensure selective and repeated manipulation between the assembled and flattened states.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wainberg, as applied to claim 6 above, in view of Burt (US 1,163,209 A).
Regarding claim 7, Wainberg teaches the storage bin of claim 6 above, wherein each of the plurality of gussets is in the form of a solid flap (FIG. 8) but fails to teach each of the plurality of gussets being generally circular sector in shape.
Burt teaches an analogous storage bin having a plurality of side extension flaps (3) and a plurality of gussets (defined by 2’, 3’, 4), wherein each of the plurality of gussets extends between a corresponding one of the plurality of side extension flaps and an adjacent panel (B). Burt further teaches that each of the plurality of gussets are known in the prior art to be generally circular sector in shape (FIG. 1, 2).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it to be an obvious matter of design choice to change the shape of each of the plurality of gussets of Wainberg, so as to be generally circular sector in shape, as taught by Burt, as merely changing the shape of each of the plurality of gussets is insufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art and is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Additionally, the shape of each of the gussets has not been shown to have any criticality and thus, is not considered to patentably distinguish over the prior art absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape of the claimed gusset is significant. One skilled in the art would further expect each of the plurality of gussets of Wainberg to function as intended (i.e., to provide leak proof corners) with the modified circular sector shape.
Regarding claim 8, Wainberg as modified by Burt teaches the storage bin of claim 7 above, wherein the storage bin has a height, each of the plurality of gussets extending from the bottom panel a portion of the height of the storage bin when the storage bin is in the assembled state (Wainberg: Fig. 6-9 and Burt: Fig. 1, 2, 4).
Regarding claim 9, Wainberg as modified by Burt teaches the storage bin of claim 8 above, wherein each of the plurality of gussets includes a central radial fold line (Wainberg: central line 44, FIG. 8).
Regarding claim 10, Wainberg as modified by Burt teaches the storage bin of claim 9 above, wherein each of the plurality of gussets is maintained in a folded condition between the corresponding side extension flap and the adjacent end panel when the storage bin is in its assembled state (Wainberg: column 4 line 35-65 and FIG. 6-9).
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wainberg in view of Burt, as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Wiley (US 2019/0344923 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Wainberg as modified by Burt teaches the storage bin of claim 7 above, wherein the storage bin comprises a buckle-type locking mechanism (40, 41, 42, 43) formed in each of the plurality of side extension flaps (Wainberg: FIG. 6-9) but fails to teach the buckle-type locking mechanism extending into its corresponding side panel.
Wiley teaches an analogous storage bin and buckle-type locking mechanism (110, 8a-8d, 5a-5d) formed in a flap or panel of the storage bin. Wiley further teaches an alternative buckle-type locking mechanism where the buckle-type locking mechanism is configured to extend partially (5a-5d) into a corresponding adjacent flap or panel (paragraphs 80-99 and Fig. 1-21E).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the expected filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to replace the buckle-type locking mechanism of Wainberg with the buckle-type locking mechanism of Wiley, such that the buckle-type locking mechanism is configured to be positioned on each of the plurality of side extension flaps (40) and extend into its corresponding side panel (35, 36), as the substitution of one known buckle-type locking mechanism for an alternative known buckle-type locking mechanism to achieve the equivalent result of providing a locking mechanism that enables the storage bin to be repeatedly moveable between the assembled state and the flattened state would have been obvious and would have yielded predictable results to one skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 12, Wainberg as modified by Burt and Wiley teaches the storage bin of claim 11 above, wherein each of the buckle-type locking mechanisms comprises a generally trapezoidal tongue (110) (Wiley: Fig. 1-21E).
Regarding claim 13, Wainberg as modified by Burt and Wiley teaches the storage bin of claim 12 above, wherein each of the tongues connects to its corresponding side extension flap through a vertical fold line (112) from which extends a pair of converging score lines (Fig. 2, 5) that terminate into a vertical slit (3a/3b/310) (Wiley: paragraphs 80-99 and Fig. 1-21E). The position of the tongues on each of the side extensions flaps of Wainberg necessarily positions the fold lines vertically and the slits vertically in the assembled state.
Regarding claim 14, Wainberg as modified by Burt and Wiley teaches the storage bin of claim 13 above, wherein each of the pair of opposing end panels includes a pair of vertical slots (Wainberg: 46-Fig. 6, 7, 9 and Wiley: 7a-7d-Fig. 1-20) but fails to teach an enlarged central opening. However, Wiley further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to provide each of a pair of opposing end panels with an enlarged central opening (6a, 6b) (Fig. 16A-20) in order to provide hand holes for easily carrying the storage bin.
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Wainberg by additionally providing each of the pair of opposing end panels with an enlarged central opening, as taught by Wiley, in order to provide hand holes for easily carrying the storage bin.
Regarding claim 15, Wainberg as modified by Burt and Wiley teaches the storage bin of claim 14 above, wherein each of the tongues are dimensioned to fittingly protrude through a corresponding vertical slot of the pair of vertical slots in an associated end panel of the pair of opposing end panels and penetrate back through its associated vertical slit to retain the storage bin in its assembled state (Wiley: paragraphs 80-99 and Fig. 1-20).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Detzel et al. (US 5,086,971 A), Cain (US 4,169,553 A), and Brandle (US 3,093,291 A).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NINA KAY ATTEL whose telephone number is (571)270-3972. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-4PM 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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at 571-272-4544. 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.
/NINA K ATTEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3734
/NATHAN J NEWHOUSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3734