DETAILED ACTION
The Amendment filed on 09/29/2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 1 has been amended, claim(s) 4-7, 9, 13-15, 18, 24-27, 30, 31, 33, 35-37, 39, 41-55, 60-73, and 75-99 have been cancelled, and claim(s) 12, 16, 22, 23, 57-59 and 74 have been withdrawn. Therefore, claims 1-3, 8, 10-12, 16, 17, 19-23, 28, 29, 32, 34, 38, 40, 56-59, and 74 are now pending in the application.
Response to Amendment
The previous 35 USC 112 rejections are withdrawn in light of applicant's amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 10, 20, 21, 28, 29, 32, 34, 38, 40, and 56, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Spindel et al. (US 7083061 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Spindel et al. teaches a physical structure (box; abstract) having kinematic compatibility (collapsible; abstract), the structure comprising walls (102, 103, 108) connected together such that the walls are moveable between a flat-folded state (figure 1) and an expanded state (figure 2-3), wherein (i) each of at least two of the walls comprises two or more panels (104, 105) and (ii) the walls at least partially enclose a volume when in the expanded state (inner space; figure 3), wherein the structure is moveable between the flat-folded state and the expanded state by moving with a single degree of freedom such that movement of one of the walls causes movement of all the connected walls (as illustrated, lifting the top wall of the box in a single direction of freedom –upward-- causes movement of all the connected walls; figure 2).
Regarding claim 8, Spindel et al. teaches the two or more panels of at least one of the two walls are disposed and connected so that the wall folds with both one or more mountain folds and one or more valley folds (it is understood that the left folds of 104/105 can be interpreted as mountain folds from an inside perspective, and the right folds of 104/105 can be interpreted as valley folds from an outside perspective).
Regarding claim 10, Spindel et al. teaches the walls comprise a first wall (102-left) and an opposing and identically foldable second wall (102-right) and the first wall has a top edge (see annotated figure 2 below) and comprises a hinge line along which the first wall folds that intersects the top edge at a non-corner location (annotated figure 2).
Regarding claim 20, Spindel et al. teaches a roof (108).
Regarding claim 21, Spindel et al. teaches the roof is one of the walls (figure 2).
Regarding claim 28, Spindel et al. teaches the walls are connected together by hinges (abstract) each of which connects adjacent ones of the walls (figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 29, Spindel et al. teaches at least one adjacent pair of the two or more panels is connected by one or more hinges (abstract).
Regarding claim 32, Spindel et al. teaches one or more locking mechanisms (302/303) disposed to lock the walls in the expanded state (col. 4, lines 35-40).
Regarding claim 34, Spindel et al. teaches the panels do not deform between the flat-folded state and the expanded state (figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 38, Spindel et al. teaches the walls comprise at least one door (it is understood that the wall is capable of functioning as at least one door).
Regarding claim 40, Spindel et al. teaches the walls comprise a hard shell (it is understood that wood material; col. 1, lines 40-42; would function as a hard shell).
Regarding claim 56, Spindel et al. teaches the physical structure has a lateral extent in the flat-folded state that is no more than an area of a largest wall of the physical structure in the expanded state (figures 1 and 2).
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 of this title, 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) 11, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spindel et al. (US 7083061 B2).
Regarding claim 11, Spindel et al. teaches the first wall has a bottom edge (annotated figure 2) and a front edge adjacent to the bottom edge (annotated figure 2) and the hinge line also intersects a corner of the bottom edge away from the front edge (annotated figure 2) but does not specifically disclose the non-corner location is at least 0.2*H away from the front edge, where H is a height of the first wall.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the non-corner location at least 0.2*H away from the front edge, where H is a height of the first wall, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, a mere change in size involves only routine skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the non-corner location at least 0.2*H away from the front edge, where H is a height of the first wall, in order to provide the desired shape and size of the structure to optimize handling and maneuverability during installation, to facilitate assembly.
Claim(s) 2 and 3, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spindel et al. (US 7083061 B2) in view of Sundell (U.S. Patent No. 2,207,836).
Regarding claim 2, Spindel et al. does not specifically disclose one or more actuators, wherein the walls are moveable between the folded state and the expanded state by the one or more actuators.
Sundell discloses one or more actuators (spring hinge; title), wherein the walls are moveable between the folded state and the expanded state by the one or more actuators (in the combination, it is understood that the spring hinge of Sundell would make the walls of Chinn moveable between the folded state and the expanded state by the one or more actuators).
Therefore, from the teaching of Sundell, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the expandable box of Spindel et al. to include one or more actuators, wherein the walls are moveable between the folded state and the expanded state by the one or more actuators, as taught by Sundell, in order to facilitate the deployment of the structure for a quicker and easier assembly, to save time and reduce required manpower.
Regarding claim 3, Sundell in the combination discloses the one or more actuators is a single actuator (figure 4).
Claim(s) 17 and 19, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spindel et al. (US 7083061 B2) in view of Yotukura (US 5474230 A).
Regarding claim 17, Spindel et al. does not specifically disclose the two or more panels comprise a panel having a non-uniform thickness that corresponds to a different one of the two or more panels.
Yotukura discloses a folding box (abstract) including two or more panels (8) comprise a panel having a non-uniform thickness (triangular; figure 8) that corresponds to a different one of the two or more panels (figure 8).
Therefore, from the teaching of Yotukura, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the expandable box of Spindel et al. such that the two or more panels comprise a panel having a non-uniform thickness that corresponds to a different one of the two or more panels, as taught by Yotukura, in order to facilitate the deployment of the structure while maintaining a compact collapsed configuration as allowed for by smaller triangular panel sections for a reduced special footprint.
Regarding claim 19, Spindel et al. does not specifically disclose at least one of the two or more panels comprises a tab extending along a hinge line and another panel is connected to the at least one of the two or more panels at the tab.
Yotukura discloses a folding box (abstract) whereby at least one of the two or more panels (8) comprises a tab (10) extending along a hinge line (figure 8) and another panel (1) is connected to the at least one of the two or more panels at the tab (figure 8).
Therefore, from the teaching of Yotukura, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the expandable box of Spindel et al. such that at least one of the two or more panels comprises a tab extending along a hinge line and another panel is connected to the at least one of the two or more panels at the tab, as taught by Yotukura, in order to allow for the box to be collapsed while having varying panel thicknesses, depending on the design use of the box.
PNG
media_image1.png
429
722
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
New reference(s) Spindel et al. (US 7083061 B2) and Yotukura (US 5474230 A) have been added to overcome the newly added limitations. Applicant’s amendment regarding “the structure is moveable between the flat-folded state and the expanded state by moving with a single degree of freedom such that movement of one of the walls causes movement of all the connected walls” overcomes the previous rejection in view of Sundell and Smith, and the references have been withdrawn.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR F HIJAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5790. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-6 EST Monday-Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Mattei can be reached on (571) 270-3238. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OMAR F HIJAZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
