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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “sixteen panels” and “sixteen sides” in claim 8 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-15 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 claims 1, 6, 12, the scope of the claims is unclear because it recites an apparatus for a high density packaging system and then recites structures of the apparatus; however, the structure recited is part of the high density packaging system as described in the original disclosure and thus it is unclear if applicant is reciting the packaging system or to an apparatus that is intended to be used with a packaging system. Furthermore, the original disclosure fails to describe any apparatus that is intended to be used for a packaging system, thus further rendering the scope of the claims unclear as to what exactly applicant is claiming. For purposes of examination, claims will be given their broadest reasonable interpretation and be treated as directed to a packaging system.
Regarding claim 1, 6, the term “snugly” is unclear because there is no technical definition for such a term. Furthermore, it is not clear if “At least one of pair of flanges” is referring to the already recited flanges or to a different part of flanges. The phrase “the same as the distance between parallel ones of side eight panels” is unclear because it lacks antecedent basis and it is not clear what parallel ones are referring to. Regarding claim 6, it is unclear whether applicant is reciting the combination of the apparatus/packaging system/product since it recites structure of the apparatus in combination with the product although the preamble suggests intended use. Regarding claim 12, the term “minimal” is unclear because there is no technical definition for such a term and thus it fails to define the metes and bounds of the claim limitation.
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) 12-13, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US 2004/0007487 to Cantu-Gonzalez.
Regarding claim 12, Cantu-Gonzalez discloses an apparatus (Fig 1) for high density packaging that contains a product with cylindrical shape (intended use), the apparatus comprising a container (10) having at least eight sides (12), flat top and bottom, a spool (18) inside the container, the spool dimensioned to fit between the eight side with minimal lateral movement therebetween (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 13, Cantu-Gonzalez further teaches the apparatus capable of functioning with the product as recited since it has the structure as recited.
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) 1-5, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 5,806,786 to Abe et al. (Abe) in view of US 2004/0007487 to Cantu-Gonzalez and US Patent No. 7,341,220 to Katayama and US Patent No. 6,648,141 to Land.
Regarding claim 1, Abe discloses an apparatus (Fig 1) comprising a body (3) having a top that is open and a bottom that is open, comprising panels joined together between top and bottom, a first end cap (10b) configured to engage the bottom of the body, first end cap including cap and sidewalls covering the bottom, a second end cap (10a) configured to engage top of the body, the second end cap including a second cap and second sidewalls, the second cap covering the top of the body, the body and end caps defining a first container (2), a spool (12) comprising a hub having a cylindrical shape, the spool receiving a length of cable (13) wound around the hub, the spool positioned inside the body (Fig 2). Abe does not teach the body and caps having an octagonal shape. However, Cantu-Gonzalez discloses an apparatus holding cable (Fig 1) and in particular discloses the body (10) and cap (40) having an octagonal shape (Fig 1). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to change the shape of the Abe container to be octagonal as suggested by Cantu-Gonzalez in order to facilitate holding of the spool since it has been held that configuration of claimed container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Abe does not teach the spool having pair of flanges in contact with the wall panels, hub receiving a disc-shaped spacer. However, Katayama discloses packaging (Fig 1) and in particular discloses a spool (1) having a pair of flanges (3) on opposite ends of a hub (2), the hub having a cylindrical shape, hub receiving a disc shaped spacer (4), spool receiving a cable (14) wound around the hub, spool fitting inside body such that the pair of flanges is in contact with wall panels (7) (col. 3, ll. 25-30). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate flanges to the Abe spool and keep them in contact with container walls as suggested by Katayama in order to keep the spool in place. The modified Abe does not teach a float having a disc shape whose diameter is substantially the same as distance between parallel ones of the panels, float fitting inside snugly. However, Land discloses packaging for cable (Fig 1) and in particular discloses incorporating a float (12) having a disc shape whose diameter is substantially same as distance between parallel panels for snug fit. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate a float to the Abe packaging as suggested by Land in order to retain the spool in the container.
Regarding claims 2-3, the modified Abe teaches the apparatus of claim 1 and further teaches the apparatus capable of functioning with boxes and power supply as recited since it has the structure as recited.
Regarding claim 4, Abe further discloses hub of the spool (12) having a size capable of receiving an underwater device since it has the structure as recited (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 5, Abe further discloses apparatus capable of functioning with other containers in a pallet as recited since it has the structure as recited.
Claim(s) 6-11, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 4,823,956 to Belisle in view of US Patent No. 4,903,833 to Beery and Land.
Regarding claim 6, Belisle discloses an apparatus for a high density packaging system (Fig 4) comprising a body (12) having an open top and open bottom, at least eight panels joined together between the top and bottom, parallel ones of panels capable of defining a gap with a product as recited since it has the structure as recited, first end cap (14) configured to engage bottom of the body and having eight sidewalls and covering the bottom, second end cap (14) configured to engage top of the body and second cap having eight second sidewalls and cover the top, body and end caps defining the container (Fig 5). Belisle does not teach a spool as recited. Beery discloses packaging (Fig 2) and in particular discloses a spool (Fig 3) having a pair of flanges (54) on opposite ends of a hub (50), the hub having a cylindrical shape, the spool configured to receive a cable (44) wound around the hub. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the product of Belisle with a spool as suggested by Beery in order to hold cable. The modified Belisle does not teach the hub receiving a disc-shaped spacer. However, Land discloses packaging for cable (Fig 1) and in particular discloses incorporating a disc shaped spacer (12) having a disc shape received in the hub (150). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate a spacer to the Abe packaging as suggested by Land in order to retain the spool in the container.
Regarding claim 7, Belisle further discloses body formed from planar sheet with plurality of lines of weakness (22) separating the eight panels, said planar sheet includes an end tab (18) affixed to one of the panels at opposite end of planar sheet.
Regarding claim 8, Belisle does not teach sixteen panels; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to duplicate the panels to better hold the product since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has not patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 9, Belisle further teaches the end caps formed from planar sheets with lines of weakness (14) separating cap section from sidewalls.
Regarding claims 10-11, Belisle further teaches the apparatus capable of functioning with the product as recited since it has the structure as recited.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cantu-Gonzalez in view of Abe.
Regarding claim 14, Cantu-Gonzalez teaches the apparatus of claim 12 but does not teach container including body with open top and bottom cover by first and second end caps. However, Abe discloses a container (2) with a spool, the container comprising a body with open top and bottom covered by first and second end caps (10a, 10b). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to change the body of Cantu-Gonzalez such that it had an open top and bottom covered by end caps as suggested by Abe in order to facilitate product retrieval.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cantu-Gonzalez in view of Beery and Land.
Regarding claim 15, Cantu-Gonzalez teaches the apparatus of claim 12 but does not teach spool including a pair of end flanges and a disc shaped spacer. However, Beery discloses packaging (Fig 2) and in particular discloses a spool (Fig 3) having a pair of flanges (54) on opposite ends of a hub (50), the hub having a cylindrical shape, the spool configured to receive a cable (44) wound around the hub. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the product of Cantu-Gonzalez with a spool as suggested by Beery in order to hold cable. The modified Belisle does not teach the hub receiving a disc-shaped spacer. However, Land discloses packaging for cable (Fig 1) and in particular discloses incorporating a disc shaped spacer (12) having a disc shape received in the hub (150). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate a spacer to the Cantu-Gonzalez packaging as suggested by Land in order to retain the spool in the container.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT POON whose telephone number is (571)270-7425. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8:30 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, 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.
/ROBERT POON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3735