DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a compartment dividing device” in claim 20, and “a closure securing device” in claim 22.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “detent means” in claim 17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, line 14 “the plan view” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 1, lines 14-15, “the receiving space… engaging in the U formed by the carry handle” is untrue. The receiving space is never disclosed as and cannot physically contact/engage the carry handle (i.e. the U of the handle) because of the intervening walls that define the compartment’s receiving space. If Applicant means a different “U” then “the U” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 2, line 5 “preferably” is a term that renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by “if”, “can”, or "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Similarly regarding claim 12 line 5, “in particular”.
Regarding claim 3, “narrow” is a relative term of degree. Examiner interprets as “elongate”.
Regarding claim 8, last line “the pivot mounting device” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 9, line 3 “the associated bearing slot” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 10, line 3 “the vertical extent” and “the vertical extent” each lack antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 12, line 4 “the region of the front edge” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 19, line 2 “the locking projection” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 19, “the region of the housing front” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 19, “the other side of the carry bar” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 19, last line “the folded-in non-use position” lacks antecedent basis. Only “a non-use position” is mentioned prior.
Regarding claim 22, line 3, both “the region” and “the closure cover pivot axis” lack antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 23, “can be releasably coupled to one another in a manner that prevents them from being separated” is an impossible contradiction rendering the claim indefinite. How can it be releasably coupled (be separated) yet prevented from separating (always coupled) at the same time?
Claims 2-23 and rejected for depending upon a rejected parent claim.
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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 1-3, 5-7, 12-20 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020052779 by Bunnik et al. (hereinafter “Bunnik”) in view of EP 2020188 issued to Maier et al. (hereinafter “Maier”).
Regarding claim 1, Bunnik teaches a storage device (Fig 2, storage device 1),
having at least one storage container (storage container 2) which has a container housing (container housing 15),
which has a housing front side (front side 6) and a housing rear side (rear side 7) opposite the housing front side extending in a depth direction (7 opposite 6 in longitudinal depth direction 17) and which has a housing lower part (housing lower part 24) and
a container cover (housing cover 25), which is mounted pivotably on the housing lower part in the region of the housing rear side (page 8, para 7, “in the region of the rear wall 33, is mounted so as to be pivotable relative to the lower housing part 24”) and on the upper side of which there is arranged a carry handle (carry handle 45),
which has a U-shaped design (45 shown in a U shape) with a carry bar (Figs 10-11, connecting web 58) and two holding limbs protruding from the carry bar at a distance from one another (Fig 2, two handle legs 57), the holding limbs being pivotably mounted on the container cover by their end regions opposite the carry bar (Figs 2 & 11, end regions of 57 are shown pivotably mounted to container cover 25), such that the carry handle is pivotable between a non-use position (Fig 2, non-use position 45a), resting on the container cover (Fig 6 shows 45 resting on 25), and a carry position (Fig 11, use position 45b), standing up from the container cover (Fig 11 shows 45 standing up from 25), and
But does not explicitly teach a cover compartment.
Maier, however, teaches a similar storage device with cover handle comprising:
a cover compartment (Fig 4, the structure that defines a “receiving space 21”) being arranged on the upper side of the container cover (shown on the upper side of a container cover 9), said cover compartment being equipped with a receiving space for accessory parts and/or other parts (receiving space 21) and being closable by a closure cover (closure cover 23), the receiving space in the plan view being partly surrounded by the carry handle in the non-use position of the carry handle (Fig 2, 21 shown partly surrounded by handle 11 in while in its non-use position) by engaging in the U formed by the carry handle (Figs 2 & 4, 21 engages in a space inside the handle (U). Examiner notes the receiving space does not and cannot engage the handle, see 35 USC 112b above),
the cover compartment extends in the depth direction of the container housing (compartment shown extending in the depth direction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the container cover of Bunnik with a closure cover on a compartment in the cover as taught by Maier in order to advantageously increase storage space while simultaneously offering separation of items that users desire to remain separate but still transportable together, and
(claims 12-14, see related citations below) the closure cover’s front edge lock/latch element to beneficially prevent the cover from jostling open, and
(claim 20, see related citations below) the dividing device dividing the receiving space into compartments to beneficially offer further separation of items that user desires to remain separate but still transportable together.
Examiner notes that the resultant combination yields the claimed invention via placing the cover compartment of Maier (and thereby its latch 31 that’s within the container cover, and divided space of the receiving space) at least at the upper lid end surface 48 of Bunnik (Fig 2) thereby making the sidewalls of the cover compartment replace the sidewalls of 48, necessarily meaning that the remaining claim limitation is also met “the cover compartment extends in the depth direction of the container housing between the carry handle and the housing rear side”.
(wherein Maier teaches related compartment-defining elements in light of dependent claims:
(claim 2) Fig 4, 21 has four defining walls forming an annular peripheral wall (i.e. the cover compartment structure that defines 21 is a front, rear and two side walls);
Fig 4, the peripheral wall is shown forming at least a part of container cover 9;
(claim 3) Fig 4, the rear wall of 21 is a shown as a strip (e.g. elongate);
(claim 5) Figs 2 & 4, 21 closed/open by closure cover 23;
(claim 6) Figs 2 & 4, shows 23 pivot between closed and open by projecting bearing pins 26 and 27 spaced in width direction that each engage a bearing recess in 9 mounting device;
(claim 7) Figs 2 & 4, 23 shown engaging between the side walls of 21;
Figs 2 & 4, 23 shown resting on rear wall of 21;
Fig 2, 23 shown resting on front wall of 21;
Fig 1 shows 23 upper side aligned with container cover 9 upper side;
(claim 12) Fig 2, a body portion of 23 is a cover element of closure cover 23;
Fig 2, a front edge of 23 is near a locking element that is “latching device 31” – and faces the carry handle of Bunnik because of the placing;
Fig 4, “latching device 31” is a locking element in the front edge region;
31 engages/locks 311 of 9; Figs 2 & 4, 31 engages the receiving space front wall too;
(claim 13) 31 locked and unlocked Figs 2 & 4;
(claim 14) page 4, para 7, a spring element is an elastic web portion of 311, such that to unlock (to go from Fig 2 to Fig 4) pressing against the spring force is necessary, wherein “When closing the closure lid 23 of the latching web is deflected by the latching projection elastically until the latching projection engages behind the latching nose and the latching web snaps back into its starting position. To release the locking can bend the locking bar by hand elastically, so that the locking projection comes free”;
(claim 20) Fig 4, a dividing device of dividers is shown dividing 21 into partial compartments)
Regarding claim 2, Bunnik/Maier further teaches the receiving space (Maier, Fig 4, 21) is delimited by an annular receiving space peripheral wall, which consists of a receiving space front wall, a receiving space rear wall and two receiving space side walls (Maier, Fig 4, 21 has four defining walls forming an annular peripheral wall (i.e. the cover compartment structure that defines 21 is a front, rear and two side walls)), wherein the receiving space peripheral wall preferably forms part of the container cover (Maier, Fig 4, the peripheral wall is shown forming at least a part of container cover 9). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 3, Bunnik/Maier further teaches the receiving space rear wall is designed in the form of a narrow strip (Maier, Fig 4, the rear wall of 21 is a shown as a strip (e.g. elongate)). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 5, Bunnik/Maier further teaches the closure cover (Maier, 23) can be moved between a closed position closing the receiving space (Maier, Fig 2, 21 closed by 23) and an open position providing access to the receiving space (Maier, Fig 4, 21 open by 23). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 6, Bunnik/Maier further teaches the closure cover (Maier, 23) is mounted on the container cover (Maier, 9) so as to pivot between the closed position and the open position by means of a pivot mounting device (Maier, Figs 2 & 4, show 23 pivot between closed and open by projecting bearing pins 26 and 27 that each engage a bearing recess in 9 mounting device). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 7, Bunnik/Maier further teaches the closure cover (Maier, 23) in its closed position engages between the two receiving space side walls of the receiving space (Maier, Figs 2 & 4, 23 shown engaging between the side walls of 21) and rests both on the receiving space rear wall (Maier, Figs 2 & 4, 23 shown resting on rear wall of 21) and on the receiving space front wall (Maier, Fig 2, 23 shown resting on front wall of 21) in such a way that the closure cover upper side in the closed position is aligned with the container cover upper side (Maier, Fig 1 shows 23 upper side aligned with 9 upper side). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 12, Bunnik/Maier further teaches the closure cover (Maier, 23) has a cover element (Maier, Fig 2, a body portion of 23), which has a front edge facing the carry handle in the closed position of the closure cover (see claim 1 combination placing; Maier, Fig 2, a front edge of 23 is near 31 – and faces the carry handle of Bunnik because of the placing), wherein a locking element is arranged on the cover element in the region of the front edge (Maier, Fig 4, “latching device 31” on a front edge region) and engages with the container cover (Maier, Fig 2, 31 engages 311 of 9, Fig 4), in particular the receiving space front wall, in the closed position (Maier, Figs 2 & 4, 31 engages the receiving space front wall too). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 13, Bunnik/Maier further teaches the locking element (Maier, 31) can be moved between a locking position locking the closure cover in the closed position (Maier, Fig 2, 31 locked) and an unlocking position (Maier, Fig 4, 31 shown unlocked). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 14, Bunnik/Maier further teaches the locking element (Maier, 31) is preloaded into the locking position by means of a spring element and is to be pressed in the direction of the unlocking position against the spring force of the spring element for unlocking (Maier, page 4, para 7, a spring element is distinct elastic web portion of 311, such that to unlock (to go from Fig 2 to Fig 4) pressing against the spring force is necessary, wherein “When closing the closure lid 23 of the latching web is deflected by the latching projection elastically until the latching projection engages behind the latching nose and the latching web snaps back into its starting position. To release the locking can bend the locking bar by hand elastically, so that the locking projection comes free”). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 15, Bunnik/Maier further teaches the end regions of the holding limbs provided for pivotal mounting (Bunnik, Fig 2, the end regions of the limbs 57 of handle 45, shown pivoting/hinged, Fig 11) engage around the receiving space side walls and are hinged to the associated receiving space side wall (Bunnik, Fig 12 shows each 57 engaging around a sidewall of 48 (shown as one black line of contact) – which are the combination’s replaced sidewalls now being the cover compartment sidewalls of Maier). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 16, Bunnik further teaches a locking mechanism is associated with the carry handle and is designed to lock the carry handle in its non-use position in a non-pivotable releasable manner (Fig 9, “locking device 69” in the cover is associated with the handle, for locking the handle 45, Fig 2, to be non-pivotable and non-releasable while locked).
Regarding claim 17, Bunnik further teaches the locking mechanism (Fig 9, 69) has detent means (Fig 9, locking units 69a and 69b) which automatically engage (Fig 2, 69a and 69b are shown engaged – to the handle – in the handle non-use position) or disengage (Fig 9, 69a and 69b are shown disengaged – to the handle – in a handle use position) depending on the pivot direction of the pivot movement when a corresponding actuating force is applied to the carry handle (to pivot the handle between Figs 2 and 9, force was necessarily used to overcome the detents).
Regarding claim 18, Bunnik further teaches the detent means (Fig 9, 69a and 69b) have at least one nose-shaped locking projection arranged on the container cover (Figs 9-10, “locking projections 75” are shown on 69a and 69b and on the container cover 25. Examiner notes that “nose-shape” is met by “projection” since “nose” broadly and reasonably doesn’t define any specific structural feature beyond projecting, and no further description is given by the Applicant).
Regarding claim 19, Bunnik/Maier further teaches a locking projection (Bunnik, Figs 9-10, 75) is arranged on a wall region of the container cover that lies in the region of the housing front side (Bunnik, 75 is shown on a container cover wall – defined by a region proximal to 75 – and both 75 and the wall region it’s on are in a region of the housing front side 6, since the front “side” is not a sidewall but a front area/region/volume) and is formed on the other side of the carry bar of the carry handle than the cover compartment when the carry handle is in the folded-in non-use position (Bunnik, Fig 12 shows each 57 engaging a sidewall of 48 (shown as one black line of contact) – which are the combination’s replaced sidewalls now being the cover compartment sidewalls of Maier. Wherein Bunnik’s locking projection 75 is shown formed not on a cover compartment wall, but on a wall of the container cover that is in a different side of the handle). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 20, Bunnik/Maier further teaches a compartment dividing device for dividing the receiving space (Maier, 21) of the cover compartment into a plurality of partial compartments (Maier, Fig 4, a dividing device of dividers is shown dividing 21 into partial compartments). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 23, Bunnik further teaches the storage device (1) according to claim 20 (see claim 20) comprises a plurality of storage containers (Fig 20, plurality of 2), which on their container housing respectively (each) have a lower coupling device in the region of the lower side (Fig 3, lower coupling device 106) and an upper coupling device in the region of the upper side (Fig 1, upper coupling device 107), wherein these two coupling devices are adapted to one another in such a way that storage containers stacked directly on top of one another in a vertical direction (Fig 20, container stack 98) can be releasably coupled to one another in a manner that prevents them from being separated from each other thanks to the interaction of the upper coupling device of the respective lower storage container and the lower coupling device of the respective upper storage container (containers shown releasably coupled while preventing at least some sliding).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020052779 by Bunnik et al. (hereinafter “Bunnik”) in view of EP 2020188 issued to Maier et al. (hereinafter “Maier”) in view of JP H0324008 U by Goto Takayuki (hereinafter “Goto”).
Regarding claim 4, Bunnik/Maier does not explicitly teach an outer surface of the receiving space rear wall facing away from the receiving space forms a section of the container cover rear surface.
Goto, however, teaches a similar closure covering a compartment comprising:
an outer surface of the receiving space rear wall facing away from the receiving space forms a section of the container cover rear surface (see examiner annotated Goto Figures 1 & 3, hereinafter “EAFG13”; EAFG13, a section of the container cover rear surface forms an outer surface (portion) of the compartment receiving space’s rear wall, and said outer surface portion faces away from the receiving space. In other words, the receiving space rear wall outer surface and container cover rear surface share a plane).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the closure cover of the cover compartment of Bunnik/Maier with having aligned outer surfaces of the space’s rear wall and closure cover’s rear as claimed as taught by Goto in order to advantageously extend the closure cover of Maier to allow for and still cover a correspondingly extended receiving space for increased size or quantity of items to store in the cover compartment receiving space.
Examiner notes the resultant combination yields the claimed invention via making the rear of the closure cover of Maier extend into the rear wall of the cover compartment receiving space of Maier, as shown by Goto.
PNG
media_image1.png
617
808
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020052779 by Bunnik et al. (hereinafter “Bunnik”) in view of EP 2020188 issued to Maier et al. (hereinafter “Maier”) in view of US Pat 4967924 issued to Murofushi et al. (hereinafter “Murofushi”).
Regarding claim 8, Bunnik/Maier further teaches the container cover (Maier, 9) has two bearing slots spaced apart from one another in the width direction (Maier, Fig 4, two bearing recesses disclosed in 9 for bearing pins 26 and 27 of 23 spaced in width direction), and wherein the closure cover engages with bearing arms belonging to the pivot mounting device (Maier, bearing arms are bearing pins 26 and 27 which are the closure cover 9 pivot mounting device (to mount and pivot the closure)).
But Bunnik/Maier does not explicitly teach two bearing slots open upwards towards the container cover upper side and towards the container cover rear surface.
Murofushi, however, teaches a similar closure covering a compartment comprising:
two bearing slots open upwards towards the container cover upper side and towards the rear (Figs 2 & 4, two bearing slots of 7 open upward towards a container cover upper side and towards a rear).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bearing holes of Maier to be slots open towards the upper side and rear surface of the container cover of Bunnik as taught by Murofushi in order to advantageously increase ease of assembly and disassembly by making the slot insertable through the top and rear rather than slid and angled/pushed in between as with Maier’s bearing holes/recesses.
Examiner notes the resultant combination yields the claimed invention via making the through holes that receive the bearing arms 26 and 27 of Maier into slots open through upward and rearward as shown by Murofushi, as claimed, so that the remaining claim limitation is also read on as the slots opening “towards the container cover rear surface”. In other words, the hole of Maier is expanded by opening up and rearward, becoming a slot that opens towards the container cover rear surface and its upper side, as Murofushi’s slots do.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020052779 by Bunnik et al. (hereinafter “Bunnik”) in view of EP 2020188 issued to Maier et al. (hereinafter “Maier”) in view of US Pat 4967924 issued to Murofushi et al. (hereinafter “Murofushi”) in view of NPL LEGO DIY (hereinafter “Lego”).
Regarding claim 9, Bunnik/Maier/Murofushi does not explicitly teach particularly placed bearing eyes on the bearing arms (Maier, bearing arms 26 and 27 are aligned with their width pivot axis).
Lego, however, teaches similar bearing joints comprising:
a cylindrical bearing eye is respectively formed on the bearing arms and is pivotably received in the associated bearing slot in such a way that the pivot axis of the closure cover running in the width direction runs through the two bearing eyes (cylindrical bearing eyes are formed on bearing arms and can pivot once inserted/received in their bearing slots, such that the pivot axis runs through both eyes; wheel pass through of eyes shows eye sections to be elastically deformable, meaning it resumes original shape).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bearing arms of Maier to have bearing eye tips as taught by Lego in order to advantageously further ease assembly and disassembly while increasing security as a snap fit type bearing joint versus not being snap fit as a simple cylinder.
PNG
media_image2.png
350
419
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020052779 by Bunnik et al. (hereinafter “Bunnik”) in view of EP 2020188 issued to Maier et al. (hereinafter “Maier”) in view of US Pat 4967924 issued to Murofushi et al. (hereinafter “Murofushi”) in view of NPL LEGO DIY (hereinafter “Lego”) in view of US Pat 5109980 issued to Matsuoka et al. (hereinafter “Matsuoka”).
Regarding claim 10, Bunnik/Maier/Murofushi/Lego further teaches the bearing slots (Maier/Murofushi), wherein the bearing eye is elastically deformable in such a way that it passes through (Lego, wheel pass through of eyes shows eye sections to be elastically deformable, meaning it resumes original shape) and resumes its original shape after passing through the slot mouth. See details in the parent claim 8 for bearing slots Murofushi, and claim 9 for bearing eye Lego rejections above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
But Bunnik/Maier/Murofushi/Lego does not explicitly teach each bearing slot having also a slot mouth.
Matsuoka, however, teaches similar bearing joints comprising:
bearing slots (see examiner annotated Matsuoka Figures 1 & 6-7, hereinafter “EAFM167”; EAFM167, bearing slots) respectively have a slot mouth arranged on the container cover rear surface (EAFM167, bearing slot mouths on rear surface (figures are rotated)) the vertical extent of which is smaller than the vertical extent of the associated bearing eye (see examiner annotated Matsuoka Figure 10C, hereinafter “EAFM10C”; EAFM10C, slot mouth vertical extent shown smaller than bearing eye (on tip of bearing arm) vertical extent (figure rotated)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bearing slots of Maier/Murofushi with an additional element each of a slot mouth as taught by Matsuoka in order to advantageously increase the security of the bearing joint connection by having the bearing eye squeeze through first before it re-expands to its original state, also providing improved detachment resistance of the closure cover to jostling while pivoting the closure cover.
Examiner notes that the resultant combination yields the claimed invention via the bearing slots of Maier/Murofushi having the slot mouths of Matsuoka, wherein the bearing arms of Maier are equipped on their free end with the bearing eyes of Lego, so that when the closure cover of Maier is attached to the container cover of Bunnik, the remaining claim limitation is met of “the bearing eye is elastically deformable in such a way that it passes through the slot mouth”.
PNG
media_image3.png
591
770
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
469
617
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Bunnik/Maier/Murofushi/Lego/Matsuoka further teaches the bearing eyes (Lego, bearing eyes) respectively have a slot open towards the free end (Lego, a slot of the eye opens towards the free end) of the bearing arms (Maier, bearing arms 26 and 27) and oriented transverse to the pivot axis (Lego, the eye slot extends into the page, which is shown transverse to the pivot axis), which slot separates the bearing eye into two bearing eye sections (Lego, slot shown separating each bearing eye into two sections), which can be bent towards each other in an elastically deformable manner due to the slot (Lego, wheel pass through of eyes shows eye sections to be elastically deformable due to the slot). See details in the parent claim 9 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020052779 by Bunnik et al. (hereinafter “Bunnik”) in view of EP 2020188 issued to Maier et al. (hereinafter “Maier”) in view of US Pat 5584412 issued to Wang (hereinafter “Wang”).
Regarding claim 21, Bunnik/Maier does not explicitly teach the dividing device comprising fixing slots and their insertable partitions.
Wang, however, teaches a compartment/space dividing device comprising:
the compartment dividing device has a plurality of fixing slots arranged on the receiving space peripheral wall (Figs 1-2, fixing slots are holes 4031 and 44) and a plurality of web-shaped partitions that can be releasably inserted into the fixing slots and fixed there (Figs 1-2, web partitions are boards 10 and 20, releasably inserted into the fixing slots, Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the dividing device of Maier with fixing slots and releasably inserted partitions as taught by Wang in order to advantageously allow receiving space size customization for more variety of items to be stored in the cover compartment.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020052779 by Bunnik et al. (hereinafter “Bunnik”) in view of EP 2020188 issued to Maier et al. (hereinafter “Maier”) in view of KR 20160004001 U by Jeon Young-bok (hereinafter “Jeon”).
Regarding claim 22, Bunnik/Maier does not explicitly teach a closure cover (Maier, 23) securing device for securing the closure cover in its closed position in the region of the closure cover pivot axis on the container cover.
Jeon, however, teaches a similar closure cover for a space comprising:
a closure cover securing device for securing the closure cover (Fig 2, a closure cover is lid 20 including portions 21 and 24) in its closed position in the region of the closure cover pivot axis on the container cover (Fig 6, a closure cover securing device is a projection 16 (formed in/on a rear wall of the space) pressing into a recess (formed by 26) thereby securing closed the closure cover in a region proximal to and around its pivot axis 22a, Fig 5 (the device 16 with 26 is shown in that region); page 3, para 6 of 8, “a pressure reinforcing protrusion 26 protruding rearward is formed to improve a pressing force generated in the elastic pressing protrusion 15”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the closure cover of Bunnik/Maier with a securing device as taught by Jeon in order to advantageously “improve a pressing force” (Jeon, para 6 of 8) of the cover when closed which improves securement of the closure cover versus jostling and tampering.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC C BALDRIGHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 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 Jenness can be reached on 5712705055. 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.
/ERIC C BALDRIGHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733 10 February 2026