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 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim not end with a period. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, 13-22 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 1 recites “a reinforced box bottom portion” in line 7. It is not clear if applicant is referring to previously (in lines 2-3) recited reinforced box bottom portion or another bottom portion.
Claim 3 recites “a retaining wall part” in line 4. It is not clear if applicant is referring to previously (in line 2) recited retaining wall part or another retaining wall part.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the door" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the box cover" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galgano (US 2016/0144289) in view of Okamoto (US 5,183,200) further in view of Godshaw (US 7,534,041).
Regarding claim 1, Galgano (fig.1) discloses a substantially rigid child’s playhouse, comprising:
a box body portion 10, the box body portion 10 including a retaining wall 18 disposed around a box bottom portion 14;
wherein the retaining wall 18 includes four substantially rigid side walls 20, 22, 24 and 26 connected in sequence, such that each sidewall is connected to two other sidewalls, and wherein one sidewall 20 includes a door 30.
Galgano fails to disclose the child’s playhouse being folding such that each sidewall is foldably connected to two other sidewalls; and
the bottom portion being a reinforced box bottom portion having three elements:
a first substantially triangular box bottom element to connect a first sidewall and a second adjacent sidewall of the four sidewalls;
a second substantially triangular box bottom element to connect a third and a fourth sidewall of the four sidewalls;
the first and second substantially triangular box bottom elements being substantially rigid and having a folding line extending across the center of each of the two substantially triangular elements from one point towards the hypotenuse; and
a substantially rigid third box bottom element supporting plate arranged in the box body, foldably connected to any one sidewall at the bottom of the sidewall.
However, Okamoto teaches a foldable container with four side walls and a reinforced bottom portion having three elements:
a first substantially triangular box bottom element 12a, 12b to connect a first sidewall and a second adjacent sidewall of the four sidewalls;
a second substantially triangular box bottom element 12c, 12d to connect a third and a fourth sidewall of the four sidewalls;
the first and second substantially triangular box bottom elements being substantially rigid and having a folding line 22 extending across the center of each of the two substantially triangular elements from one point towards the hypotenuse; and
a substantially rigid third box bottom element supporting plate 20 foldably connected to any one sidewall at the bottom of the sidewall (fig. 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the playhouse of Galgano, collapsible with triangular box bottom elements, a rigid box bottom element supporting plate, as taught by Okamoto, in order to facilitate easier storage and transport (without compromising the rigidity of the bottom) when the playhouse is not in use.
Regarding the substantially rigid third box bottom element supporting plate 20 being arranged in the box body, Godshaw teaches a supporting plate 44 arranged in a foldable box body, wherein the supporting plate 44 is connected to any one side wall in a foldable manner and is close to a bottom part (fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have provided the supporting plate 20 of the modified Galgano, in the box, as taught by Godshaw, so the reinforcement plate 20 is supported by the bottom panels, thereby increasing structural stability.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galgano (US 2016/0144289) in view of Okamoto (US 5,183,200) further in view of Godshaw (US 7,534,041) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Mehta (WO 2006/051559).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Galgano further discloses the playhouse being prepared from one continuous portion of material (fig. 1) but fails to disclose:
the first box bottom element including a semi-circular through hole disposed near the hypotenuse of the first box bottom element, and wherein the folding line of the first box bottom element extends from one point of the substantially triangular first box bottom element to the semi-circular through hole disposed near the hypotenuse of the first box bottom element; and
the second box bottom element including a semi-circular through hole disposed near the hypotenuse of the second box bottom element, and wherein the folding line of the second box bottom element extends from one point of the substantially triangular second box bottom element to the semi-circular through hole disposed near the hypotenuse of the second box bottom element.
However, Mehta teaches a foldable bottom of a container having a circular through hole 27 formed in the center (fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have provided the center of the foldable bottom of the modified Galgano, a hole, for providing a finger grip to easily collapse the container as taught by Mehta in page 6, lines 15-20.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto (US 5,183,200) in view of Godshaw (US 7,534,041).
Regarding claim 3, Okamoto (fig. 14) discloses a box capable of being used as a children's toy box, comprising:
a box body 46 comprising a bottom part and a retaining wall part arranged around the bottom part;
the retaining wall part comprising four side walls which are sequentially connected, wherein any two adjacent side walls are connected in a foldable manner;
a bottom part comprising a first bottom part 12a, 12b and a second bottom part 12c, 12d, wherein the first bottom part 12a, 12b is connected with two side walls in the four side walls in a foldable manner, the second bottom part 12c, 12d is connected with the other two side walls in the four side walls in a foldable manner, a first folding line 22 is arranged on the first bottom part, so that the first bottom part can be folded along the first folding line 22, and a second folding line 22 is arranged on the second bottom part, so that the second bottom part can be folded along the second folding line 22;
a supporting plate 20 connected to any one side wall in a foldable manner and is close to the bottom.
Okamoto fails to disclose the supporting plate 20 being arranged in the box body.
However, Godshaw teaches a supporting plate 44 arranged in a foldable box body, wherein the supporting plate 44 is connected to any one side wall in a foldable manner and is close to a bottom part (fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have provided the supporting plate 20 of the modified Okamoto, in the box, as taught by Godshaw, so the reinforcement plate 20 is supported by the bottom panels, thereby increasing structural stability.
Claims 5-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto (US 5,183,200) in view of Godshaw (US 7,534,041) as applied to claim 3 above, further in view of Rylander (US 4,112,635).
Regarding claims 6-7 and 9, the modified Okamoto discloses all elements of the claimed invention except for one of the sidewalls having a through hole formed therein, the children's toy box further comprising a door disposed on the through hole and covering the through hole; and
a stiffener disposed above the door; wherein a screw hole is formed above the sidewall where the door is located, and a fixing through hole is formed on the reinforcing rib, and a screw passes through the fixing through hole to fix the reinforcing rib in the screw hole of the sidewall.
However, Rylander teaches a collapsible container having a stiffener 48 or reinforcing rib disposed above a door 64, 66, wherein the stiffener is bolted in position (fig. 8 and col. 3, lines 47-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have provided the modified device of Okamoto, door and a stiffener above the door, for facilitating supporting the roof or cover, as taught by Rylander in col. 3, lines 47-51 and to access the inside of the container through the door.
Regarding claim 5, Okamoto further discloses the first bottom part 12a, 12b is foldable into two equal-area parts along the first fold line 22 and the second bottom part12c, 12d is foldable into two equal-area parts along the second fold line 22 (fig. 14).
Claims 10, 12-13 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto (US 5,183,200) in view of Godshaw (US 7,534,041) as applied to claim 3 above, further in view of Mehta (WO 2006/051559).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Okamoto discloses all elements of the claimed invention as applied to claim 3 above, but fails to disclose at least one of the first bottom or the second bottom being provided with handling holes.
However, Mehta teaches a foldable bottom of a container having a circular through hole 27 formed in the center (fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have provided the center of the foldable bottom of the modified Galgano, a hole, for providing a finger grip to easily collapse the container as taught by Mehta in page 6, lines 15-20.
Regarding claim 12, Okamoto (fig. 14) discloses a one-piece, folding box capable of being used as children's toy box, comprising:
a box body 46 comprising a bottom portion and a retaining wall part arranged around the bottom portion;
the retaining wall part comprising four side walls which are sequentially connected, wherein any two adjacent side walls are connected in a foldable manner;
the bottom portion comprising a first bottom part 12a, 12b and a second bottom part 12c, 12d;
wherein the first bottom part 12a, 12b includes an interior edge and two exterior edges, where each of the two exterior edges is connected with one of the two side walls of the four side walls in a foldable manner;
the second bottom part 12c, 12d includes an interior edge and two exterior edges, where each of the two exterior edges is connected with one of the other two side walls of the four side walls in a foldable manner;
a first folding line 22 arranged on the first bottom part, so that the first bottom part can be folded along the first folding line, and a second folding line 22 arranged on the second bottom part, so that the second bottom part can be folded along the second folding line; and
a supporting plate 20 connected to any one side wall in a foldable manner and is close to the bottom portion.
Okamoto fails to disclose:
a first semicircular through hole positioned near the center of the interior edge of the first bottom part;
a second semicircular through hole positioned near the center of the interior edge of the second bottom part such that when the interior edges of the first bottom part and the second bottom part are in the same plane adjacent to one another, the two semicircular through holes may form a substantially complete circular through hole; and
the supporting plate being arranged in the box body.
However, Godshaw teaches a supporting plate 44 arranged in a foldable box body, wherein the supporting plate 44 is connected to any one side wall in a foldable manner and is close to a bottom part (fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have provided the supporting plate 20 of the modified Okamoto, in the box, as taught by Godshaw, so the reinforcement plate 20 is supported by the bottom panels, thereby increasing structural stability.
Further, Mehta teaches a foldable bottom of a container having a circular through hole 27 formed in the center (fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have provided the center of the foldable bottom of the modified Galgano, a hole, for providing a finger grip to easily collapse the container as taught by Mehta in page 6, lines 15-20.
Regarding claim 13, Okamoto further discloses the folding children’s toy box being a one-piece construction produced from one continuous portion of material (figs. 14-15).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Okamoto further discloses a first handling hole disposed in the first bottom portion, and a second handling hole disposed in the second bottom portion, since the hole 27 of Mehta is provided in the center (fig. 2 of Mehta).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Okamoto further discloses the first and second folding line define a radius of the substantially complete circular through hole when the interior edges of the first bottom part and the second bottom part are in the same plane adjacent to one another, since the hole 27 of Mehta is provided in the center (fig. 2 of Mehta).
Regarding claim 19, Okamoto further discloses the first and second folding lines 22 define a single diagonal axis of the bottom portion (fig. 12).
Claims 11, 14 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto (US 5,183,200) in view of Godshaw (US 7,534,041) as applied to claim 3 above, further in view of Rutledge (US 805,234).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Okamoto discloses all elements of the claimed invention as applied to claim 3 above, but fails to disclose one side of the box cover being connected to the upper end of one side wall in a foldable manner and covers the top of the box body.
However, Rutledge teaches a foldable container having a cover 8( attached to a sidewall) that is capable of being folded across the superposed sidewalls (fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided the modified device of Okamoto, a cover that is capable of being folded across the superposed sidewalls, so that the entire box occupies little space and is in a convenient for packing the same away, as taught by Rutledge in page 2, col. 2, lines 3-7.
Regarding claim 14, Okamoto further discloses the first bottom part 12a, 12b is foldable into two equal-area parts along the first fold line 22 and the second bottom part 12c, 12d is foldable into two equal-area parts along the second fold line 22 (fig. 14).
Regarding claim 21, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 22, the modified Okamoto further discloses the support plate being connected to only one sidewall (fig. 2 of Godshaw).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto (US 5,183,200) in view of Godshaw (US 7,534,041) further in view of Mehta (WO 2006/051559) as applied to claim 10 above, further in view of Rylander (US 4,112,635).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Okamoto discloses all elements of the claimed invention as applied to claim 10 above, except for one of the sidewalls fully enclosing a through hole formed therein, the children's toy box further comprising a door disposed on the through hole and covering the through hole.
However, Rylander teaches a collapsible container having a through hole 66 and a door (fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have provided the modified device of Okamoto, door to access the inside of the container through the door.
Claims 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto (US 5,183,200) in view of Godshaw (US 7,534,041) and Mehta (WO 2006/051559) as applied to claim 10, further in view of Rutledge (US 805,234).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Okamoto discloses all elements of the claimed invention as applied to claim 10 above, but fails to disclose a box cover connected to the upper end of one side wall in a foldable manner and configured to cover the top of the box body.
However, Rutledge teaches a foldable container having a cover 8 (attached to a sidewall) that is capable of being folded across the superposed sidewalls (fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided the modified device of Okamoto, a cover that is capable of being folded across the superposed sidewalls, so that the entire box occupies little space and is in a convenient for packing the same away, as taught by Rutledge in page 2, col. 2, lines 3-7.
Regarding claim 20, the modified Okamoto further discloses the radius defined by the first and second folding line 22 is perpendicular to the interior edges of the first and second bottom portion, since the hole 27 of Mehta is provided in the center (fig. 2 of Mehta).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAINE GIRMA NEWAY whose telephone number is (571)270-5275. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM- 5:00PM.
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.
/BLAINE G NEWAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/Anthony D Stashick/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735