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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Comments
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 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.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element T should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63/328,956, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The provisional application does not contain support for at least the method recited in claims 11 and 12 (no mention of the precise method is disclosed nor are the bumpers/spacers). Additionally, the specification of the provisional does not apparently mention the vertical skirt or vertical fin.
For the purposes of examination on the merits for at least claims 4-5 and 11-12, the effective filing date will be 4/11/23 and not 4/8/22, the filing date of the provisional application.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claim 5 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 5, line 1 recites “the first and second ends” which lacks antecedent basis in the claims. For the purpose of examination on the merits the claim is interpreted to read "wherein each of the first and second ends of the elongated body".
Claim 5, line 2 recites "the vertical skirt" which lacks antecedent basis in the claim as no previous limitation of a “a vertical skirt” is present.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Marvin.
For claim 1, Marvin (3543951) discloses a lashing apparatus for stabilizing shipping containers stored on a cargo ship, comprising:
an elongated body (5; figures 1-5) having first and second ends (left and right ends of rack 5 in figures 4-5),
wherein each of the first and second ends includes a mechanism capable of interfacing with an interlocking system of one or more shipping containers (the corners at the left and right ends of rack 5 Include dowels that interlock with corner castings of the containers 6; figures 1-5; column 3, lines 20-55) and is configured to partially cover and abut against a front side of a shipping container when the mechanism interfaces with the interlocking system (shoulder elements 47 and 48 of the racks 5 abut and partially extend over sides of the containers 6 when the dowels of the racks 5 are interlocked with the corner castings of containers 6; figs 1-5; column 3, lines 20-55); and
PNG
media_image1.png
503
544
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a lashing (8) having First and second ends (as shown),
wherein the first end of the lashing includes a loop (the upper end of the guy cable 8 includes a loop that loops around a lashing staple 12a; figures 1-3; column 2, lines 65-75), and
PNG
media_image2.png
298
519
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the second end of the lashing is capable of being connected to a lashing bridge or a deck of the cargo ship (the lower end of the guy cable 8 is fixed to a lashing pad 14 on the deck of the ship; abstract; figures 1-3; column 3, lines 1-10);
wherein the first end of the lashing is attached to the elongated body (the upper end of the guy cable 8 includes the loop that loops around the lashing staple 12a which is integral with the stay bar 7 of the rack 5; figures 1-5; column 2, lines 65-75).
For claim 2, the elongated body includes a beam having a protrusion (rack 5 includes a beam like structure having dowels (protrusion); figures 1-5; column 3, lines 20-55).
For claim 5, each of the first and second ends of the elongated body further includes a vertical fin that extends laterally from a vertical skirt (left and right ends of rack 5 in figures 4-5 includes shoulders 47 and 48 (vertical fins) extending upwardly and downwardly from stay bar 7 (vertical skirt) as shown; figures 1-5; column 3, lines 40-55).
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marvin as applied to claim 2 above in view of Maher et al. (11235841).
For claim 3, Marvin lacks the first end of the lashing is attached to the elongated body by winding the loop around one or more of a bollard attached to a pin, or a fairlead attached to a pin, a feature taught by Maher et al.
Maher et al. disclose wherein the first end of the lashing is attached to the elongated body by winding the loop around one or more of a bollard attached to a pin (lashing 24 loops round bollard 46 which is attached to a pin as shown in figures 8 or 14; column 10, lines 15-30), or a fairlead attached to a pin.
PNG
media_image3.png
473
588
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the lashing apparatus of Marvin such that the lashing is attached to the elongated body by winding the loop around one or more of a bollard attached to a pin as taught by Maher et al. because, as Maher et al. disclose the bollards may be fixedly mounted on the rack so that the lashing is wrapped around the bollard to secure the lashing in place (Maher et al.; column 10, lines 15-30).
Substituting the lashing staple (12,12a) of Marvin a bollard requires only routine skill in the art.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marvin as applied to claim 2 above in view of Strecker (3776169).
For claim 4, Marvin discloses the lashing apparatus of claim 2, wherein the mechanism includes locks (the corners at the left and right ends of rack 5 include dowels that interlock with corner castings of the containers 6; figures 1-5; column 3, lines 20-55) and a vertical skirt extending downward, wherein the skirt is configured to cover and abut against a shipping container when the mechanism interfaces with the interlocking system (as shown, the downwardly extending shoulder elements 47 and 48 (vertical skirt) of the racks 5 abut and partially extend over sides of the containers 6 when the dowels of the racks 5 are interlocked with the corner castings of the containers 6; figures 1-5; column 3, lines 20-55).
Marvin lacks the mechanism includes twist-locks.
Strecker teaches a mechanism including twist-locks (beams 25, 26, and 27 includes twist locks 75; figures 1-2, 6; column 5, lines 15-40).
PNG
media_image4.png
431
564
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the lashing apparatus of Marvin such that the locks are in the form of twist-locks as taught by Strecker because, as Strecker discloses, the twist-locks better secure the beams to the tiers or containers to provide vertical and horizontal restraint for the containers when they are in the locked position) (Strecker; column 5, lines 15-30; column 6, lines 1-10).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marvin in view of Strecker (3776169).
For claim 11, Marvin discloses a method of stabilizing shipping containers stored on a cargo ship, wherein all the shipping containers are located between a first wall of shipping containers stacked on the cargo ship and a second wall of shipping containers stacked on the cargo ship, the method comprising:
providing a first lashing apparatus (front beam 80 of top rack 5 connected to corresponding guy cables 8; figures 1, 4-5, 10; column 2, lines 65-75) including:
a first elongated body having first and second ends,
wherein each of the first and second ends includes a mechanism capable of interfacing with an interlocking system of a first shipping container (front beam 80 of top rack 5 having ends with dowels that interlock with corner castings of the containers 6; figures 1, 4-5, 10; column 3, lines 20-55); and a first lashing having first and second ends,
wherein the first end of the first lashing includes a loop (guy cable 8 corresponding to the front beam 80 of top rack 5, having an upper end with a loop and a lower end; figures 1-5);
securing the first elongated body to the first wall by interfacing the first and second ends of the first elongated body with an interlocking system of the first shipping container (front beam 80 of top rack 5 having ends with dowels that interlock with corner castings of the containers 6 at left and right side containers of the stack of containers; figures 1, 4-5, 10; column 3, lines 20-55);
partially covering a front side of the first shipping container with the mechanisms of the first and second ends of the first elongated body (as shown, the shoulder elements 47 and 48 of the front beam 80 of the top rack 5 abut and partially extend over front sides of the containers 6 when the dowels of the racks 5 are interlocked with the corner castings of containers 6; figures 1-5; column 3, lines 20-55);
abutting the mechanisms of the first and second ends of the first elongated body against the front side of the first shipping container (as shown); attaching the first end of the first lashing to the first elongated body (the upper end of the guy cables 8 include loops that loop around lashing staples 12a; figures 1-3; column 2, lines 65-75);
connecting the second end of the first lashing to a lashing bridge or a deck of the cargo ship so that the first lashing is oriented from the first wall downward and toward the second wall (the lower end of the guy cables 8 are fixed to a lashing pad 14 on the deck of the ship, the guy cables 8 pass from an upper right corner downward towards a lower left corner and vice Versa; abstract; figures 1-3; column 3, lines 1-10);
providing a second lashing apparatus (rear beam 80 of top rack 5 connected to corresponding guy cables 8; figures 1, 4-5, 10; column 2, lines 65-75) including:
a second elongated body having first and second ends, wherein each of the first and second ends includes a mechanism capable of interfacing with an Interlocking system of a second shipping container (rear beam 80 of top rack 5 having ends with dowels that interlock with corner castings of the containers 6; figures 1, 4-5, 10; column 3, lines 20-55);
a second lashing having first and second ends (guy cable 8 corresponding to rear beam 80 of top rack 5, having an upper end with a loop and a lower end as shown; figures 1-5);
securing the second elongated body to the second wall by interfacing the first and second ends of the second elongated body with an interlocking system of the second shipping container (rear beam 80 of top rack 5 having ends with dowels that interlock with corner castings of the containers 6 at left and right side containers of the stack of containers; figs 1, 4-5, 10; column 3, lines 20-55);
partially covering a front side of the second shipping container with the mechanisms of the first and second ends of the second elongated body (as shown, the shoulder elements 47 and 48 of the rear beam 80 of the top rack 5 abut and partially extend over rear sides of the containers 6 when the dowels of the racks 5 are interlocked with the corner castings of containers 6; figs 1-5; column 3, lines 20-55);
abutting the mechanisms of the first and second ends of the second elongated body against the front side of the second shipping container (as shown);
attaching the first end of the second lashing to the second elongated body (the upper end) of the guy cables 8 include loops that loop around lashing staples 12a; figs 1-3; col 2, lines 65-75);
connecting the second end of the second lashing to the lashing bridge or the deck of the cargo ship so that the second lashing is oriented from the second wall downward and toward the first wall (the lower end of the guy cables 8 are fixed to a lashing pad 14 on the deck of the ship, the guy cables 8 pass from an upper right corner downward towards a lower left corner and vice versa; abstract; figures 1-3; column 3, lines 1-10); and
applying tension to the first lashing and to the second lashing (the guy cables 8 will be biased or tensioned in order to effectively secure the containers 6; col 2, lines 20-30 and 70-75).
Marvin fails to disclose wherein all the shipping containers are located between a first wall of shipping containers stacked at one of a starboard side and a port side of the cargo ship and a second wall of shipping containers stacked at the other of the starboard side and the port side of the cargo ship.
Strecker discloses wherein all the shipping containers are located between a first wall of shipping containers stacked at one of a starboard side and a port side of the cargo ship and a second wall of shipping containers stacked at the other of the starboard side and the port side of the cargo ship (the containers 14-19 are stacked from a starboard side to a port side of the ship as shown in figure 1; column 1, line 50 - column 2, line 10).
PNG
media_image5.png
494
649
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the method of Marvin such that the shipping containers are located between a first wall of shipping containers stacked at one of a starboard side and a port side of the cargo ship and a second wall of shipping containers stacked at the other of the starboard side and the port side of the cargo ship as taught by Strecker because it is well known to stack containers on ships between starboard and port sides to maximize stacking space on the ship.
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marvin as applied above to claim 1 and in view of Williams et al. (10800528).
For claim 6, Marvin discloses the lashing apparatus of claim 1 but fails to provide the elongated body being flexible, a feature taught by Williams et al.
Williams et al. disclose wherein the elongated body is flexible (tension member 62 may comprise a rope; figure 1; column 3, lines 50-65).
PNG
media_image6.png
452
730
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the lashing apparatus of Marvin such that the elongated body is flexible as taught by Williams et al. because, as Williams et al. disclose the rope can be wrapped around the container passing through fairleads to provide the desired tension on the exterior of the walls to provide additional reinforcement (column 3, lines 50-65).
This modification would require replacing Marvin's beams between the corner stay bars with a rope such that the rope passes therethrough and thereby interlocks within the stay bars in the same manner that the rope of Williams et al. interlocks within the cable fairleads at the corner tiedown adapters, which would provide the additional advantage of allowing the lashing apparatus to be used with different sized and shaped containers.
Replacing the rigid beam with a flexible rope would require only routine skill in the art.
For claim 7, Marvin, as modified, lacks the elongated body includes a segment of rope.
Williams et al. discloses wherein the elongated body includes a segment of rope (tension member 62 may comprise a rope; figure 1; column 3, lines 50-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided the elongated body of Marvin with a segment of rope as taught by Williams et al. because, as Williams et al. disclose, the rope can be wrapped around the container passing through fairleads to provide the desired tension on the exterior of the walls to provide additional reinforcement (column 3, lines 50-65).
This modification would require replacing Marvin's beams between the corner stay bars with a rope such that the rope passes therethrough and thereby interlocks within the stay bars in the same manner that Williams et al.'s rope interlocks within the cable fairleads at the corner tiedown adapters, which would provide the additional advantage of allowing the lashing apparatus to be used with different sized and shaped containers.
Replacing the rigid beam with a flexible rope would require only routine skill in the art.
For claim 8, Marvin, as modified further lacks the first end of the lashing is attached to the elongated body by winding the loop around the elongated body (the upper end of the guy cable includes the loop that loops around the lashing staple 12a which is integral with the stay bar 7 of the rack 5 and so is an integral part of the rack 5; figures 1-5; column 2, lines 65-75).
For claim 9, Marvin, as modified, lacks the mechanism extends laterally from the container when it interacts with the interlocking system so that the mechanism does not interfere with the stacking of containers.
Williams et al. disclose wherein the mechanism (18; figures 1-2) extends laterally from the container (4, fig.1) when it interacts with the interlocking system so that the mechanism does not interfere with the stacking of containers (the tension member 62 passes through fairleads 34, thereby interlocking the tension member 62 with the tiedown adapter 18; tiedown adapter 18 extends laterally from corners of container 4 so that multiple containers are capable of being stacked; figures 1-2; column 3, lines 20-55 ).
PNG
media_image7.png
574
689
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the mechanism of Marvin to extend laterally from the container when it interacts with the interlocking system so that the mechanism does not interfere with the stacking of containers as taught by Williams et al. because, as Williams et al. disclose, the tiedown adapter wraps around the sidewall corners of the container to provide the desired tension on the exterior of the walls to provide additional reinforcement (Williams et al.; column 3, lines 50-65).
This modification would require replacing Marvin's beams between the corner stay bars with a rope such that the rope passes therethrough and thereby interlocks within the stay bars in the same manner that Williams et al.'s rope interlocks within the cable fairleads at the corner tiedown adapters, which would provide the additional advantage of allowing the lashing apparatus to be used with different sized and shaped containers.
Replacing the rigid beam with a flexible rope would require only routine skill in the art.
For claim 10, Marvin, as modified, fails to disclose wherein the mechanism includes a container lifting lug.
Williams et al. discloses wherein the mechanism Includes a container lifting lug (the tiedown adapter 18 includes a load ring or shackle 50, which is a lug capable of being used to lift the container 4 and so is capable of acting as a container lifting lug: figs 1-2; col 3, lines 35-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified Marvin's lashing apparatus such that the mechanism includes a container lifting lug as taught by Williams et al. because, as Williams et al. disclose, the tiedown adapter wraps around the sidewall corners of the container to provide the desired tension on the exterior of the walls to provide additional reinforcement and includes a load ring or shackle so that it can swivel while attaching to the vertical load straps or tiedown straps (column 3, lines 35-65; column 4, lines 1-15).
This modification would require replacing Marvin's beams between the corner stay bars with a rope such that the rope passes therethrough and thereby interlocks within the stay bars in the same manner that Williams et al. 's rope interlocks within the cable fairleads at the corner tiedown adapters, which would provide the additional advantage of allowing the lashing apparatus to be used with different sized and shaped containers.
Replacing the rigid beam with a flexible rope would require only routine skill in the art.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marvin, as modified and applied to claim 11 above and further in view of Maher et al.
For claim 12, Marvin as modified above fails to include the step of positioning spacers or bumpers between columns of the shipping containers so as to pre-load a layer of containers from both the starboard and the port sides when tension is applied to the first lashing and the second lashing.
Maher et al. disclose positioning spacers or bumpers between columns of the shipping containers (22) as to pre-load a layer of containers from both sides when tension is applied to the first lashing and the second lashing (spacers or bumpers 68, FIG.13, are positioned between columns of the stack of containers 22 to allow the container stack to be pre-loaded from both sides when tension is applied to lashings 24; column 11, lines 45-65).
PNG
media_image8.png
414
588
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified Marvin's method to include positioning spacers or bumpers between columns of the shipping containers so as to pre-load a layer of containers from both sides when tension is applied to the first lashing and the second lashing as taught by Maher et al. because, as Maher et al. disclose, this allows the stack of containers to be pre-loaded from both sides when tension is applied to the lashings (column 11, lines 45-65).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to integrate this method of using spacers or bumpers with stacked configuration of containers between the starboard and port sides of Marvin, as modified above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HILARY L GUTMAN whose telephone number is 571.272.6662. 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, VIVEK KOPPIKAR can be reached on 571.272.5109. 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 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. Should you have questions, 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.
/HILARY L GUTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612B
Prosecution Insights