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 18-36 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.
With Respect to Claims 18 and 30-31
The phrase “vertically tension-proof” is unclear in scope/meaning, noting that the specification indicates that the “vertically tension-proof coupling” “transmits a vertical tensile force” and a vertical tensile force, and a tensile force is a force “of, relating to, or involving tension” (TENSILE Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster), and/or that it “functions as a fixed bearing and/or transmits forces in all spatial directions”. It is unclear whether the phrase “vertically tension-proof” merely broadly indicates that the coupling is capable of withstanding the vertical tension/forces acting on it (e.g. allowing one container to lift the other), or if it has some other scope.
The remainder of this office action is based on the invention as best understood by Examiner.
With Respect to Claim 20
The phrase “plate-like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "-like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
With Respect to Claims 19-29 and 32-36
These claims are rejected as they depend from a rejected claim and so incorporate its indefinite scope.
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.
Claims 18-21, 27-28, 30-31, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #8,875,888 to Koenig (Koenig) in view of U.S. Patent #5,244,265 to Chiang (Chiang) and/or U.S. Patent #9,365,321 to Wu (Wu), or in view of either U.S. Patent Publication #2002/0130598 to Schmidt (Schmidt), U.S. Patent #12,086,758 to Tvrdy (Tvrdy), or U.S. Patent #3,315,796 to Dreyfuss (Dreyfuss), or any of these alone or also in view of Chiang and/or Wu.
With Respect to Claim 18
Koenig discloses a transport box (1) with an interior for accommodating a transport item, as well as with a wall structure which provides a horizontally aligned transport box upper side and a horizontally aligned transport box lower side (see, e.g. FIGS. 1 and 4), wherein the transport box comprises a coupling interface (26 and related structure) for the releasable, vertically tension-proof coupling to an upper system box which can be placed onto the transport box upper side and to a lower system box which can be positioned below the transport box lower side, in order to form, with the upper system box and the lower system box, a vertical stack (see, e.g. FIG. 5 and description, capable of this use which is also the intended use, the joining is vertically tension-proof to the best of Examiner’s understanding of the scope of this unclear phrase, noting also the substantial structural similarity to the inventive coupling interface), wherein the transport box comprises an access opening to the interior (noting top opening), and that the different stackable transport boxes can differ from each other (e.g. in height) as long as they have the same coupling and preferably the same engaging structures; but does not disclose said access opening being arranged on a vertically aligned transport box peripheral side, and wherein the transport box comprises a cover structure which is attached to the wall structure and which in a closure position closes the access opening, wherein the cover structure can be brought into an open position in which the cover structure releases the access opening to the interior, without a change of the coupling interface and/or without a movement of the transport box upper side and/or of the transport box lower side.
However, Chiang discloses forming a similar transport box made up of multiple vertically attached stacked containers (see, e.g. FIGS. 2-3 showing at least 4 separate containers vertically stacked together) in which at least one of the containers has an access opening arranged on a vertically aligned transport box peripheral side (noting opening covered by 20/25, see, e.g. FIG. 3), and wherein the transport box comprises a cover structure (20 and/or 25) which is attached to the wall structure and which in a closure position closes the access opening (see, e.g. FIG. 2), wherein the cover structure can be brought into an open position in which the cover structure releases the access opening to the interior, without a change of the coupling interface and/or without a movement of the transport box upper side and/or of the transport box lower side (see, e.g. FIG. 3, it is opened while the box above it is still attached and opening does not require any movement of the bottom of the transport box).
Wu discloses forming a stackable box with a side access opening and a cover structure as claimed, in order to allow for access to the interior while the box is in a stacked configuration.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Chiang or Wu, to form one or more of the transport boxes as taught by Koenig with an access opening on the side and a cover structure (e.g. a pivotal door) as taught by Chiang, which will perform as claimed, in order to allow for accessing the interior via the side opening while the box is in a stacked configuration with other boxes, for the other art known benefits of this configuration, and/or as a mere selection of an art appropriate transport box structure or at most a mere substitution of one art known transport box structure for another.
Alternately, although the benefit of having the cover be openable while stacked is shown in Chiang, to the degree that this benefit is not explicitly stated as such, Wu’s disclosure provides additional evidence of the obviousness of and/or motivation to add a side opening cover/door like that of Chiang to the Koenig box.
Alternately, Schmidt, Tvrdy, or Dreyfuss discloses similar boxes (Schmidt and Tvrdy specifically tool boxes) including an access opening and cover structure largely as claimed (i.e. they include covers for the access openings which do not require moving/operating structures relating to the sides the access opening is not located on), and it would have been obvious in view of any of these references to use an opening and cover as taught by any of them in order to provide an access opening to the box interior and a closure mechanism, with the additional benefit of these references also being access on multiple sides (as the openings/lids are on two or three of the sides), for the benefits disclosed by the respective reference for its structure, and/or as a mere selection of an art appropriate access and closure structure or at most a mere substitution of one art known access and closure structure for another. Alternately, although Examiner maintains that the disclosure of Schmidt, Tvrdy, or Dreyfuss is sufficient to motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to use an access opening and lid as taught by that reference, Chiang’s disclosure to use a similar access opening on a stacked toolbox and/or Wu’s disclosure of the benefits of a similar side access opening on a stacked box provides additional/sufficient motivation for and/or evidence of the obviousness of this modification.
For clarity, the combination encompasses locating the access opening on any side of the box of Koenig, with appropriate modification as needed, such as locating it between the anchoring means (46/47) if located on the front of the box.
With Respect to Claim 19
The transport box according to claim 18, wherein the access opening is aligned vertically with its opening plane (see, e.g. Chiang FIGS. 1 and 3).
With Respect to Claim 20
The transport box according to claim 18, wherein the cover structure is plate-like (as shown, it is a plate and/or plate-like to the extent claimed).
With Respect to Claim 21
The transport box according to claim 18, wherein the cover structure is designed as a flap (it is a flap to the extent claimed).
With Respect to Claim 22
The transport box according to claim 18, wherein the cover structure can be completely removed from the wall structure in order to assume the open position and to release the access opening (per Chiang it is attached via pins on the doors that pass through hinge barrels on the wall, which is a removable attachment, or to the degree the removability is not explicitly stated and it is possible to add some permanent attachment to such pins, it would clearly be obvious to have them be removable as no such permanent attachment is disclosed, to simplify construction, and/or as doing so would constitute at most merely making separable which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04)).
With Respect to Claim 27
The transport box according to claim 18, wherein the coupling interface comprises a rotary bar (26 as shown is a rotary bar) which is arranged on the same transport box peripheral side as the access opening (it is shown on the front of the box which is the same side as the access opening added per Chiang).
With Respect to Claim 28
The transport box according to claim 18, wherein the cover structure is a removable rear wall of the transport box (it would be obvious to locate it on the rear of the transport box, noting also that any of the walls can be considered the rear wall as no other limitations specify directions).
With Respect to Claim 30
A stack arrangement, comprising a transport box according to claim 18, the upper system box and the lower system box (Koenig discloses attaching boxes to the top and/or bottom of each other and so discloses/renders obvious at least three such boxes or alternately Chiang also discloses at least 3 stacked boxes), wherein the upper system box is placed onto the transport box upper side and the transport box is coupled via the coupling interface to the upper system box in a releasable and vertically tension-proof manner, and wherein the transport box with its transport box lower side is placed onto the lower system box and the transport box is coupled via the coupling interface to the lower system box in a releasable and vertically tension-proof manner, and wherein the cover structure can be brought into the open position without moving the upper system box and/or the lower system box (it is Examiner’s position that locating the box modified per Chiang in the center with a box above and blow it is obvious as a mere selection of an art appropriate location for it and/or as locating it there instead of as the bottom or top box constitutes at most a mere rearrangement of parts which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04)).
With Respect to Claim 31
The stack arrangement according to claim 30, wherein the lower system box and/or the upper system box comprises a respective system box lower part, onto which a respective system box lid is placed, as well as a respective system box rotary bar (26) which is arranged on the respective system box lid and contributes to the respective releasable, vertically tension-proof coupling (per Koenig, the top of the top container and/or the bottom of the bottom container can be considered a respective lid).
With Respect to Claim 36
A method for operating a transport box according to claim 18, comprising the step: bringing the cover structure into the open position without changing the coupling interface and/or without moving the transport box upper side and/or the transport box lower side (obvious per Chiang’s or Wu’s disclosure of opening it and the lack of need to change the coupling interface and/or moving the transport box upper or lower side).
Claims 23 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #8,875,888 to Koenig (Koenig) in view of either U.S. Patent Publication #2002/0130598 to Schmidt (Schmidt), U.S. Patent #12,086,758 to Tvrdy (Tvrdy), or U.S. Patent #3,315,796 to Dreyfuss (Dreyfuss), or any of these and further in view of Chiang and/or Wu (see the rejection of claim 18 above for the combinations of these references.
With Respect to Claim 23
The transport box according to claim 18, wherein the access opening extends over at least two transport box peripheral sides (per Schmidt, Tvrdy, or Dreyfuss).
With Respect to Claim 25
The transport box according to claim 18, wherein the cover structure comprises a first cover wall and a second cover wall which is aligned orthogonally to the first cover wall (per Schmidt’s disclosure of 82/84 being perpendicular, Tvrdy’s disclosure of first and second panels of doords 104/104’ being perpendicular, or as to Dreyfuss as shown they are at least substantially orthogonal and it is Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to make them perpendicular as a mere selection of an art appropriate angle/shape or at most a mere change in shape which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04).
Claims 24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #8,875,888 to Koenig (Koenig) in view of U.S. Patent #3,315,796 to Dreyfuss (Dreyfuss), alone or further in view of Chiang and/or Wu (see the rejection of claims 18 and 25 above for the details of this combination).
With Respect to Claim 24
The transport box according to claim 18, wherein the access opening extends over at least three transport box peripheral sides (per Dreyfuss).
With Respect to Claim 26
The transport box according to claim 25, wherein the cover structure comprises a third cover wall which is aligned parallel to the second cover wall (per Dreyfuss).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #8,875,888 to Koenig (Koenig) in view of U.S. Patent #5,244,265 to Chiang (Chiang) and/or U.S. Patent #9,365,321 to Wu (Wu), or in view of either U.S. Patent Publication #2002/0130598 to Schmidt (Schmidt), U.S. Patent #12,086,758 to Tvrdy (Tvrdy), or U.S. Patent #3,315,796 to Dreyfuss (Dreyfuss), or any of these alone or also in view of Chiang and/or Wu as applied to claim 18 above, either alone or further in view of U.S. Patent #5,893,599 to Strohfeldt (Strohfeldt) and/or DE 102019116083 to Dahner (Dahner).
With Respect to Claim 29
The transport box according to claim 18, further comprising a fastening interface (noting the bottom fastening interface on the lower system box) for the releasable fastening of the transport box in a vehicle stowage device (capable of this use as attaching the lower system box to a mating fastening interface in/on the vehicle stowage device will result in the transport box being fastened in the vehicle stowage device).
Alternately, Strohfeldt discloses a fastening interface (j-bolt and related structure) to attach the rear wall of a toolbox in a vehicle stowage device (e.g. pickup truck cargo bed) and/or Dahner discloses a fastening interface (noting 4 and related structure) for attaching the rear of a tool holding structure in a vehicle stowage device (9 and/or vehicle cargo space it is located in).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Strohfeldt or Dahner, to add a fastening interface as taught by that reference to the toolbox/holding structure of Koenig/the combination, in order to allow for secure attachment to a vehicle to hold tools and/or other items in position in the vehicle for transport and/or use. Alternately, although Examiner maintains that Dahner’s disclosure is sufficient to add such an attachment mechanism to the Koenig/combination toolbox, to the degree that Dahner relates to a shelving system, Strohfeldt’s disclosure of attaching a toolbox provides additional motivation to add an attachment mechanism like that of Dahner to the Koenig/combination toolbox.
Claims 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #8,875,888 to Koenig (Koenig) in view of U.S. Patent #5,244,265 to Chiang (Chiang) and/or U.S. Patent #9,365,321 to Wu (Wu), or in view of either U.S. Patent Publication #2002/0130598 to Schmidt (Schmidt), U.S. Patent #12,086,758 to Tvrdy (Tvrdy), or U.S. Patent #3,315,796 to Dreyfuss (Dreyfuss), or any of these alone or also in view of Chiang and/or Wu as applied to claim 18 or 30 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent #10,583,962 to Brunner (Brunner) or U.S. Patent #5,893,599 to Strohfeldt (Strohfeldt) and/or DE 102019116083 to Dahner (Dahner).
With Respect to Claim 34
The combination with STrohfeldt and/or Dahner (see the rejection of claim 29 above for details of this combination) discloses a motor vehicle comprising a storage space, in which a vehicle stowage device is arranged, on which vehicle stowage device a stransport box according to claim 18 is releasably fastened.
Alternately, Brunner discloses a motor vehicle (pickup truck) comprising a storage space (cargo bed), in which a vehicle stowage device is arranged (FIG. 20, noting additional connectors shown in cargo bed), on which vehicle stowage device a stackable vehicle transport box is releasably fastened per description).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Brunner to releasably fasten the transport box of Koenig/the combination to a mating vehicle stowage device in a motor vehicle storage space (e.g. truck bed) in order to secure the transport box in position on the vehicle for transport and/or use.
With Respect to Claim 35
A motor vehicle comprising a storage space, in which a vehicle stowage device is arranged, on which vehicle stowage device a stack arrangement according to claim 30 is releasably fastened.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #8,875,888 to Koenig (Koenig) in view of U.S. Patent #5,244,265 to Chiang (Chiang) and/or U.S. Patent #9,365,321 to Wu (Wu), or in view of either U.S. Patent Publication #2002/0130598 to Schmidt (Schmidt), U.S. Patent #12,086,758 to Tvrdy (Tvrdy), or U.S. Patent #3,315,796 to Dreyfuss (Dreyfuss), or any of these alone or also in view of Chiang and/or Wu as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent #10,618,692 to Hori (Hori).
With Respect to Claim 32
The transport arrangement comprising a transport box according to claim 18, and the use of similar containers to hold tools (see, e.g. Tvrdy, Schmidt, Chiang) but does not disclose an electrical tool which is arranged in the transport box and which via the access opening can be removed from the transport box in the open position of the cover structure.
However, Hori discloses forming a similar stackable container/case with one of the cases holding an electrical tool (T, see e.g. FIG. 25 and description) which is removable via an access opening for use. It is noted that Hori discloses forming attached cases to store batteries, allow charging, add cooling devices, and provide other benefits in conjunction with the power tool.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Hori, to use the case of Koenig/the combination to hold an electrical tool, as a mere selection of an art appropriate object to hold in the case and/or to allow for safe storage and/or transport of the electrical tool. For clarity, the combination encompasses either merely locating an appropriate power tool in the Koenig/combination box or modifying the box so as to hold a particular tool (e.g. adding elements 111 or the like per Hori). Alternately, it would also have been obvious to modify the other storage containers so as to operate in conjunction with the power tool (e.g. store batteries) as taught by Hori.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #8,875,888 to Koenig (Koenig) in view of U.S. Patent #10,618,692 to Hori (Hori), U.S. Patent #5,244,265 to Chiang (Chiang) and/or U.S. Patent #9,365,321 to Wu (Wu), or in view of either U.S. Patent Publication #2002/0130598 to Schmidt (Schmidt), U.S. Patent #12,086,758 to Tvrdy (Tvrdy), or U.S. Patent #3,315,796 to Dreyfuss (Dreyfuss), or any of these alone or also in view of Chiang and/or Wu as applied to claim 32 above, and further in view of EP 2954977 to Rohde (Rohde).
With Respect to Claim 33
The transport arrangement of claim 32, wherein the electrical tool is a grinder, but does not specify a particular type of grinder and so does not disclose that it is a long-neck grinder,
However, Rohde discloses that a long-neck grinder is an art known electrical tool, and so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Rohde, to form the transport box so as to store a long-neck grinder, as a mere selection of an art appropriate electrical tool to store/use with the transport box.
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 ADAM J WAGGENSPACK whose telephone number is (571)270-7418. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
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.
/ADAM J WAGGENSPACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights