DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-14, 16, 18-19 and 21-24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a collapsed configuration where the opposing side walls approach one another remaining parallel to one another”. It is unclear if the side walls remain parallel while approaching one another or if they are only required to be parallel in the final collapsed configuration.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-14, 16, 18-19 and 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warhurst et al (US-20070108204-A1) in view of Schrayvogel (US-20100018967-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Warhurst discloses:
1. A collapsible intermodal container (10) comprising: opposing first (16) and second (18) elongate side walls each having lower (16L, 18L) and upper (16U, 18U) opposing sides; an elongate floor (12) having opposing sides and being connected to the first side wall (Fig. 2); an elongate roof (14) having opposing sides and being connected to the second side wall (Fig. 2); wherein the container is configured for movement between (a) an expanded configuration where the opposing side walls are disposed parallel to and separated from one another to define a space for storing goods (Fig. 1), and (b) a collapsed configuration (Fig. 3); wherein the first and second side wall include a first and second wall skeleton frameworks respectively (36, 38, par. 0018), each of said wall skeleton frameworks including a wall perimeter frame and a plurality of longitudinally spaced and transversely oriented wall members (104), each of said wall members being connected at opposing ends to respective opposing sides of the wall perimeter frame (Fig. 5); and wherein the roof includes a roof skeleton framework (48, par. 0020), said roof skeleton framework including a roof perimeter frame and a plurality of longitudinally spaced and transversely oriented roof beams (par. 0020), said wall skeleton frameworks and the roof skeleton framework cooperating with one another for stiffening of the collapsible intermodal container (Fig. 4).
Warhurst fails to teach where, as the opposing side walls approach one another, they remain parallel to one another.
Schrayvogel teaches that it was known in the art to manufacture a collapsible intermodal container with opposing side walls (11, 13) that as the opposing side walls approach one another, they remain parallel to one another (Fig. 3, par. 0031).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have manufacture the container of Warhurst with the collapsible side wall structure taught by Schrayvogel, in order to manufacture the walls with less sections to simplify their structure and since such a modification would be a simple substitution of now collapsible wall structures to achieve a collapsing container.
Regarding claims 2-4, 6-14, 16, 18-19 and 21-24, the modified container of Warhurst teaches:
2. The collapsible intermodal container of claim 1, wherein the opposing first and second elongate side walls remain substantially parallel to one another whilst the collapsible container is moved between the expanded configuration and the collapsed configuration (Schrayvogel, Fig. 3).
3. The collapsible intermodal container of claim 1, wherein one of the sides of the elongate floor is connected to the lower side of the first side wall, and wherein one of the sides of the elongate roof is connected to the upper side of the second side wall (Warhurst, Fig. 1).
4. The collapsible intermodal container of claim 1, wherein said wall and roof skeleton frameworks provide stiffening of said container in the expanded and collapsed configurations as well as stiffening of said container in any intermediate configuration between the expanded and collapsed configurations; and wherein the wall and roof skeleton frameworks each remain substantially whole and unmodified between in the intermediate configurations (Warhurst, Figs. 1-3).
6. The collapsible intermodal container as claimed in claim 1, wherein the plurality of longitudinally spaced roof beams substantially align with corresponding of the plurality of longitudinally spaced wall members of both the first and second wall skeleton frameworks (Warhurst, Fig. 4).
7. The collapsible intermodal container as claimed in claim 1, wherein the plurality of longitudinally spaced wall members include multiple pairs of said wall members (Warhurst, Fig. 4).
8. The collapsible intermodal container as claimed in claim 6, wherein each of the plurality of roof beams substantially aligns with a corresponding one of the multiple pairs of the wall members together forming one of a plurality of longitudinally spaced ring frames enhancing the structural rigidity of the collapsible intermodal container (Warhurst, Fig. 4).
9. The collapsible intermodal container as claimed in claim 6, wherein the container further includes a plurality of floor hinges connected to said one of the opposing sides of the floor and the lower of the opposing sides of the first wall to permit hinging between the floor and the first wall, and a plurality of roof hinges connected to said one of the opposing sides of the roof and the upper of the opposing sides of the second wall to permit hinging between the roof and the second wall (Schrayvogel, Fig. 3, par. 0030).
10. The collapsible intermodal container as claimed in claim 8,wherein the plurality of floor hinges include multiple pairs of said hinges, each of said pairs of hinges being in substantial alignment with corresponding of one of the multiple pairs of the wall members of the first wall (Schrayvogel, Fig. 3, par. 0030).
11. The collapsible intermodal container as claimed in claim 8, wherein the plurality of roof hinges include multiple pairs of said hinges, adjacent of said pairs of hinges being equally spaced in substantial alignment with corresponding of one of the multiple pairs of the wall members of the second wall (Schrayvogel, Fig. 3, par. 0030).
12. The collapsible intermodal container as claimed in any claim 8, wherein the floor/roof hinge includes a hinge member having a first extension connected to either the floor or the roof and a second extension hingedly coupled to the first or the second side wall via a hinge pin mounted to said wall adjacent its lower or upper sides, said first and second extensions being formed perpendicular to one another to provide eccentric movement of the floor or roof relative to its corresponding side wall during movement of the collapsible container between its expanded and collapsed configurations (Schrayvogel, Fig. 3, par. 0030).
13. The collapsible intermodal container as claimed in claim 11, wherein the hinge pin is separated a distance from the lower or upper side of the corresponding wall thereby enabling the eccentric movement of the floor or roof (Schrayvogel, Fig. 3).
14. The collapsible intermodal container as claimed in claim 6, wherein the container further includes a plurality of first track members associated with the first of the opposing pair of walls, each of said first track members configured to be inter-engaged by one of a plurality of corresponding roof carriages connected to the roof, whereby movement of said collapsible container between the expanded and the collapsed configurations is accompanied by sliding movement of the roof carriages relative to the corresponding first track members; and wherein the plurality of first track members are mounted to the first wall between respective of the multiple pairs of wall members of the first wall skeleton (Schrayvogel, par. 0029, “associated” and “inter-engaged” do not require that components are directly containing something).
16. The collapsible intermodal container as claimed in claim 6, also comprising a plurality of second track members associated with the second wall, each of said second track members configured to be inter-engaged by one of a plurality of corresponding floor carriages connected to the floor whereby movement of said collapsible container between the expanded and the collapsed configurations is accompanied by sliding movement of the floor carriages relative to the corresponding second track members; wherein the plurality of second track members are mounted to the second wall between respective of the multiple pairs of wall members of the second wall skeleton (Schrayvogel, par. 0029).
18. The collapsible intermodal container as claimed claim 13, wherein each of the track members are welded or otherwise attached to the corresponding pair of wall members (Schrayvogel, Fig. 3, all components are attached).
19. (Currently Amended) The collapsible intermodal container of claim 1, wherein the roof perimeter frame is elongate and adapted for connection to a roof panel associated with the roof; and the plurality of longitudinally spaced and transversely oriented roof beams is connected to respective of opposing sides of the roof perimeter frame thereby stiffening the roof panel; wherein the roof panel includes a plurality of perimeter sides, and the roof perimeter frame is in alignment with the roof panel at or adjacent the perimeter sides (Warhurst, Fig. 1).
21The collapsible intermodal container of claim 1, wherein the floor includes a floor skeleton framework, said floor framework comprising: a floor perimeter frame being elongate and adapted for connection to one or more floor panels associated with the floor; a plurality of longitudinally spaced and transversely oriented floor beams (Warhurst, 46), each of said transverse beams at opposing ends connected to respective of opposing longitudinal beams of the floor perimeter frame thereby stiffening the floor (Warhurst, Fig. 6); a pair of support beams connected at opposing ends to respective of the opposing longitudinal beams, said support beams (a) disposed parallel to the transverse floor beams and (b) longitudinally separated by a predetermined distance (Warhurst, Fig. 6, par. 0019).
22. The collapsible intermodal container as claimed of claim 21, wherein the opposing longitudinal beams of the floor perimeter frame each include a plate recess adapted to receive a transition plate connected to a lower of the opposing longitudinal beams of the perimeter frame of each of the opposing side walls, said transition plates being arranged, in the expanded configuration of the collapsible container, to bridge the longitudinal beams of the floor perimeter frame and respective of the lower longitudinal beams of the wall perimeter frames such that the container, when expanded, is continuously supported when being moved on a roller track (Warhurst, Fig. 6, par. 0019)..
23. (Currently Amended) The collapsible intermodal container as claimed in claim 22, wherein the plate recesses of respective of the opposing longitudinal beams of the floor perimeter frame and the corresponding transition plates of the opposing side walls are longitudinally offset from one another thereby enabling receipt of said transition plates within plate recesses of the lower longitudinal beams of the opposing side walls during movement of the collapsible container into the collapsed configuration whereupon the transition plates bridge said lower beams of the side walls, such that the container, when collapsed, is continuously supported when being moved in the on a roller track (Warhurst, Fig. 6, par. 0019)..
24. (Currently Amended) The collapsible intermodal container of claim 1, wherein the wall perimeter frame is elongate and adapted for connection to a wall panel associated with one of the pair of side walls; and wherein the wall frameworks each include a plurality of longitudinally spaced and transversely oriented wall members, each of said wall members at opposing ends connected to respective of opposing sides of the wall perimeter frame thereby stiffening the wall panel; and wherein the wall panel includes a plurality of perimeter sides, and the wall perimeter frame is connected to and in alignment with the wall panel at or adjacent its perimeter sides (Warhurst, Fig. 5, par. 0022-0026).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY R ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7426. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday-Friday.
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 at (571)270-5055. 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.
/JEFFREY R ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733