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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 15-20 stand withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 19 December 2025.
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 (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 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, 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Karren (US 5992632).
Karren discloses a patio box, comprising: a box body (container 10) including: a front wall (one longitudinal side wall), a pair of side walls (end pieces 22, two per container 10), a rear wall (other longitudinal side wall), and a base (bottom surface 40), wherein the front wall, the pair of side walls, and the rear wall are disposed around edges of the base, a foot (one of shoulders 30, 34) formed on an exterior surface the base, and a spacer (one of nesting braces 38 adjacent to the foot) formed on an inner surface of the base opposite of the foot, wherein the entirety of the spacer (38) extends away from the inner surface of the base (40).
Re claim 6, , Karren discloses that the foot is one of a plurality of feet. Each foot is formed at a corner as Fig. 1 shows that the feet (shoulders 30, 34) extend the full longitudinal length and adjacent two corners of the exterior surface of the base.
Re claim 14, Fig. 2 and 3 show the two different stacks of patio boxes, each with at least a pair of patio boxes, each patio box according to claim 1, the foot (30, 34) of an upper box of the pair of patio boxes rests on the spacer (38) of a lower box of the pair of patio boxes.
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, 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) 2-4 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karren in view of Stanek et al. (US 10065765) (Stanek).
Re claims 2-4, Karren discloses a lip as shown at the upper edges in the cross sections of Fig. 2 and 3. However, the lip might only extend along the longitudinal walls (front wall and rear wall) instead of all four side walls. Stanek teaches a rectangular, patio box with a lip (horizontal portion of rim 111) formed by a free edge (upper edge) of the front wall, pair of side walls and the rear wall and the lip is circumscribed by a flange (vertical portion of rim 111 or upwardly extending section 148) (claim 3). Stanek further teaches supports (stays 156, see Fig. 2, 3, 7, 8) formed between the flange and an exterior surface of the front wall, the pair of side walls, and the rear wall. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the lip construction to be like that of Stanek with the flange and supports in order to properly support and reinforce the upper edge and allow stacking on the upper edge.
Re claim 12, Karren fails to disclose a lid. Stanek teaches a lid (grate 104) configured to selectively cover an open end of the box body. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the lid to cover and protect the contents of the patio box from impact.
Claim(s) 9, 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karren in view of Evans (US 5445397).
Re claim 9, the contour of the corner walls of Karren can’t be deciphered from the drawings. Evans teaches arcuate corner walls (see annotated Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide arcuate corner walls to provide equal stress distribution or to lessen the stress at the corner by rounding the corner rather than having a sharp corner.
PNG
media_image1.png
574
744
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claims 12 and 13, Karren fails to disclose a lid. Evans teaches a lid (lid 14 or front portion 15 of lid 14) configured to selectively cover an open end of the box body and a hinge (16) connecting the lid to the box body. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the lid to cover and protect the contents of the patio box from impact.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karren in view of Stanek as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Whitta et al. (US 2022/0089324) (Whitta).
The combination fails to properly disclose handles, Whitta teaches handles 122, 124 on front and rear walls of a patio box formed between the lip and an exterior surface of the front and rear walls. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add handles to provide comfort and reliable grip on a patio box for carrying and lifting.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karren in view of Padgett et al. (US 12085374) (Padgett).
Karren fails to disclose bosses. Padgett teaches bosses (interlocking elements 220 and protrusions 222) disposed on the exterior surface of the base of the box. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add bosses to the exterior surface of the base of the box to provide interlocking surfaces for stable stacking and to prevent inadvertent toppling or misaligned stacking of boxes.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karren in view of Jurik (US 5466089).
Karren fails to disclose the pentagonal shape of the spacer. Jurik teaches a floor block 12 of pentagonal shape. The shape of the spacers has no criticality. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the shape of the spacer to be pentagonal has one of many shapes that fit into a corner to provide stability and reinforcing strength when multiple patio boxes are nested together.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karren in view of Tsui (US 2019/0085503).
Karren fails to disclose the drain and the removable plug. Tsui teaches with drain 96 as shown in Fig. 17 and discussed in paragraph [67] and a removable plug 102 shown to be covering and plugging drain 96 in Fig. 16 and discussed in paragraph [67], lines 16-17. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the drain and plug to the base of the patio box to allow collection of fluid with the plug in place and draining of fluid with the plug removed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The lid of claim 22 includes a series of elements that include: a top panel, a skirt, longitudinal channels in the top panel, water drainage channels in the corners of the skirt, foot-receiving recesses in the top panel and downwardly depending standoffs depending from the underside of the top panel. This series of lid elements are unique in design and when coupled together form a lid which is novel and non-obvious.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on a newly cited reference.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN J CASTELLANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4535. The examiner can normally be reached 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.
sjc/STEPHEN J CASTELLANO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights