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 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 14-19 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 14, third portion 1218 being both spaced from (line 6) and coupling to (line 5) second portion 1222 is unclear how both can be true simultaneously. They are mutually exclusive claims rendering the claim indefinite. Please see a detailed analysis in the rejection below for interpretation.
Regarding claim 19, the third portion collar does not extend into the cavity of the first portion. This claim is new and unsupported by the specification. Claim 14 places the collar above the top portion only. The specification only supports the collar above ([0168] “a circular opening [in the first portion] from which a collar 1304 of the third portion 1218 extends”; Fig 45, the collar does not go into the cavity, it rises above a portion of the third portion that separates the collar from the first portion). Not a 112a rejection because claim 18 and the drawings make clear how the third portion actually attaches. Please see a detailed analysis in the rejection below for interpretation.
Claims 15-19 are also rejected for depending upon rejected parent claim 14.
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 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.
Claims 14-15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pat 10717580 issued to Hudson et al. (hereinafter “Hudson”).
Regarding claim 14, Hudson teaches a storage container (see examiner annotated Hudson Figures 1 & 3, hereinafter “EAFH13”; EAFH13, 10) for storing a material (Title, “storage container” necessarily for a material), the storage container comprising:
a lid (EAFH13, lid 82); and
a container body having a first portion (EAFH13, container body 12’s first portion is about a top half thereof),
a second portion to which the lid is configured to be attached (EAFH13, lid shown attached to second portion 42), and
a third portion for holding the material (EAFH13, third portion 40 with 50 is shown capable of holding at least some volume of material), the third portion being configured to be disposed in the first portion (EAFH13 and Fig 5 show third in the first 12) and extend above the first portion for removably coupling to the second portion (EAFH13, third shown removably coupled to second via threads; col 3 lines 52-55), and the second portion being spaced from the first and third portions in a longitudinal direction by a collar (EAFH13, collar 2nd shows defining at least a gap – which is vertical spacing – between second and first, and between second and at least a portion 50 of third) defining a gap between the first and second portions (EAFH13, gap).
PNG
media_image1.png
727
942
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Hudson further teaches the first portion is formed from a corrugated structure (EAFH13, first portion 12; col 3 lines 15-20, “body 12 may be any suitable shape” and “may be made out of… a corrugated structure such as cardboard”) and the second (EAFH13, second portion 42 is plastic; col 4 lines 30-32, “lid 42 may be… plastic”) and third portions are formed from plastic (EAFH13, third portion 40 is plastic; col 3 lines 54/55, third portion “cap 40 includes a base 50” that is/wherein “base 50… may be formed of… plastic”, col 4 lines 11-13).
Regarding claim 17, Hudson further teaches the collar (EAFH13, collar 2nd) includes threads that mate with corresponding threads on a collar of the third portion to removably couple the second portion to the third portion (EAFH13, Fig 2, threads (46) on a collar 3rd of the third portion are necessarily shown removably coupling to collar 2nd of the second portion, as disclosed; col 3 lines 52-55, “lid 42 removably coupled to the end cap 40, such as by threads on an inner surface of the lid 42 that mate with threads 46 on an outer surface of the end cap 40”).
Regarding claim 18, Hudson further teaches the first portion (Fig 8, first portion of 12) includes a wall with an open top end and a closed bottom end that define a cavity (Fig 8, “cavity 28” shown in a circumferential wall through an open top end and closed by a bottom) for receiving the third portion (Fig 7, third portion 40 is shown capable of inserting into/being received in the cavity in Figures 1 & 5 by at least a portion 56 of 40).
Regarding claim 19, Hudson further teaches the first portion (first portion of 12) additionally includes a top portion (said open top end of the first portion includes a top portion) having an opening into the cavity (28) through which the collar of the third portion extends (Fig 7, the portion 56 of third portion 40 (wherein 56 is an extension of the collar 3rd since both are of the third portion) is shown inserting into/received in the cavity in Figures 1 & 5).
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 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat 10717580 issued to Hudson et al. (hereinafter “Hudson”) in view of US Pat 2844245 issued to Gruber et al. (hereinafter “Gruber”).
Regarding claim 16, Hudson does not explicitly teach a shipping lid removably coupled to the third portion, the shipping lid having substantially the same profile as the first portion.
Gruber, however, teaches a shipping lid (Fig 1, a lid capable of use in shipping is “premium container 13” which is a folded blank, col 1 line 68, for tamper evidence “the premium container cannot be opened to remove the premium without tearing the premium container”, col 1 lines 37-40) removably coupled to a third portion (Fig 2 & 4, col 3 lines 1-2, teeth and tabs of circular opening are shown “held in position for engagement with the flange or rim of the cap of the jar”), the shipping lid having substantially the same profile as a first portion (Figs 2 & 4, a top profile and a cross-section profile are shown as a circular opening in the middle of 13 having substantially the same circular profile as an upper first portion of container body jar 10).
Therefore, 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 assembled storage container’s third portion of Hudson with an added removable shipping lid on it as taught by Gruber in order to advantageously provide tamper evidence (as disclosed by Gruber) to enhance customer satisfaction.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat 4478450 issued to Picozza (hereinafter “Picozza”) in view of KR 101452264 by Lim (hereinafter “Lim”) in further view of BR 202015011442 by Bettanin (hereinafter “Bettanin”).
Regarding claim 20, Picozza teaches a method of coupling an attachment (a method shown through Figures 1, 7 and 12 shows an attachment 20 removably coupling to a container 22) having a handle attachment strap (Fig 7, an attachment strap frame 30 can be handled) to a container having first (Fig 7, a portion of 22 below 30) and second portions (Fig 7, a portion of 22 above 30 with flange 26) spaced from one another in a longitudinal direction to define a gap (Fig 7, a longitudinal spaced gap along 22 spanning 30 (since 30 is between the first and second portions)), the handle attachment strap and the container each having an outer profile that is substantially polygonal in shape (Figs 1 and 4, 30 and 22 are rectangular (i.e. polygonal, not circular)), the method comprising:
rotating the handle attachment strap and container relative to one another (Figures 12 necessarily shows rotating 30 relative to the container 22) until corners of the handle attachment strap are proximate or abutting respective corners of the container (Fig 12 shows corners of 30 abut respective corners of 22) and protrusions projecting upward from at least two corners of the handle attachment strap are positioned at anchor points at the respective corners of the container above the gap (Fig 7, projections 32 extending above 30 that removably engage corner anchor points of 26) thereby removably coupling the handle attachment strap to the container (thereby removably coupling the handle attachment strap 30 to the container 22).
But Picozza does not explicitly teach removably coupled ends of the handle strap.
Lim, however, teaches a similar container attachment strap (Fig 2, 210) comprising:
advancing first (Fig 2, a first end of 210 at projection 230) and second ends (Fig 2, a second end of 210 at opening 240) of the handle attachment strap around the container in a gap (Figures 2 to 1 show an advancing of 210 around a container 100 in a gap of a first portion of the container created between 130 and 140);
removably coupling the first and second ends of the handle attachment strap together (Fig 2, 240 removably couples with 230) in the gap (Fig 1, together in the gap).
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 handle attachment strap of Picozza to include coupled ends advancing around and coupling in a gap as taught by Lim, and removably coupling on Picozza’s container, in order to advantageously allow the user to not lift the container before sleeving the strap thereby easing use of the strap.
But Picozza/Lim does not explicitly teach a functional attachment.
Bettanin, however, teaches a functional attachment being a separate item from a handle attachment strap (Fig 3, [018], a functional lifting hook attachment 2 is a detachable separate item from a handle strap 6)
removably coupling the functional attachment to a corner of the handle attachment strap (Figs 3-4, [018], the functional hook attachment 2 is detachable for removably coupling 2 to a corner of the handle strap 6).
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 handle attachment strap of Picozza to have a removably attached and separate functional attachment as taught by Bettanin in order to advantageously allow for more variety of lifting devices to be used, thereby increasing ease of use.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8 and 12-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-8 and 14-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12116179. Examiner notes that since instant claim 1 has the allowed matter “a second cavity” of the parent application it is Continued from, Double Patenting is the only rejection to make.
Regarding claim 1, Patent ‘179 claim 1 recites each instant claim limitation (and also recites “and a ledge extending radially inwardly from a bottom of the inner wall to define a seat for the lid”, and “wherein one or more anchor points are defined by interior corners of the outer wall in the second cavity for receiving a handle attachment strap”).
Regarding claim 2, Patent ‘179 claim 3 is verbatim.
Regarding claim 3, Patent ‘179 claim 4 is verbatim.
Regarding claim 4, Patent ‘179 claim 5 is verbatim.
Regarding claim 5, Patent ‘179 claim 1 “anchor points” limitation portion (above) is verbatim.
Regarding claim 6, Patent ‘179 claim 6 is verbatim.
Regarding claim 7, Patent ‘179 claim 7 is verbatim except its prefix to “cavity” is “third cavity” which does not change the scope.
Regarding claim 8, Patent ‘179 claim 8 is verbatim.
Regarding claim 12, Patent ‘179 claim 14 recites each instant claim limitation (and also recites “removably” and “separate from the handle attachment strap”).
Regarding claim 13, Patent ‘179 claim 15 recites each instant claim limitation (and also recites “for removably coupling the first and second ends”).
Claims 9-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12116179 (above) in view of US Pat 10717580 issued to Hudson et al. (hereinafter “Hudson”).
Regarding claim 9, Patent ‘179 claims do not explicitly teach a third portion.
Hudson, however, teaches the container body (Fig 1, “container body 12”) additionally includes a third portion for holding the material (Fig 2 shows 12 including a third portion cap 40 with its base 50 of plastic; col 3 lines 54/55, wherein 40 is capable of holding material), the third portion configured to be disposed in (Figs 1 & 5, 50 of 40 is shown in an upper first portion of 12 of cardboard; col 3 lines 15-20) and extend above the first portion for attaching to the second portion (Figs 1-2, 40 has a collar and shown capable of threading onto a second portion that is lid 42 of plastic; col 4 lines 30-32, the threading extending above 12).
Therefore, 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 collar of the storage container of patent ‘179 to have a third portion in between the first and second portions as taught by Hudson in order to advantageously allow more variety of types and volume of material in different shaped and sized containers modularly, thereby beneficially meeting more variety of customers’ needs.
Examiner notes the resultant combination yields the claimed invention via the collar of the second portion of Patent ‘179 threading onto the material holding third portion of Hudson via a collar of said third portion, and said third portion both attaching in and extending above the first portion of Patent ‘179.
Regarding claim 10, Patent ‘179/Hudson further teaches the collar (Patent ‘179, the collar of the second portion also has threads) includes threads that mate with corresponding threads on a collar of the third portion to removably attach the second portion to the third portion (Hudson, Figs 1-2, said threads are on the collar of third portion 40 removably attaching second 42 to third 40). See details in the parent claim 9 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 11, Patent ‘179/Hudson further teaches the first portion is formed from a corrugated structure (Hudson, Fig 1, first portion 12; col 3 lines 15-20, “body 12 may be any suitable shape” and “may be made out of… a corrugated structure such as cardboard”) and the second (Hudson, Fig 1, second portion 42 is plastic; col 4 lines 30-32, “lid 42 may be… plastic”) and third portions are formed from plastic (Hudson, Fig 1, third portion 40 is plastic; col 3 lines 54/55, third portion “cap 40 includes a base 50” that is/wherein “base 50… may be formed of… plastic”, col 4 lines 11-13). See details in the parent claim 9 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
US Pat 6126048 issued to Bublitz
PNG
media_image2.png
649
699
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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