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 Objections
Claims 11 and (14 or 15-20) are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 11, last three lines “the table support legs extend perpendicular to the table top panel so as to engage the at least one removable storage container when the table top attachment is vertically stacked” is not clearly written to describe how a plurality of legs engages only one container, but is not a 35 USC 112b since Figure 19 clearly shows how it works, wherein each leg contacts at least one of the containers. Examiner suggests replacing “so as to engage the at least one removable storage container” with “so as to engage each leg with
Regarding claim 14, the preamble “A storage unit” does not match its dependent claims 15-20 preamble “The customizable storage system”, but should have one same preamble throughout.
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 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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat 5484182 issued to Meisner (hereinafter “Meisner”) in view of US D789088 issued to Stuart et al. (hereinafter “Stuart”).
Regarding claim 14, Meisner teaches a storage unit (Fig 1, show a storage unit per the below claims of a container 38 that necessarily stores articles, with a caddy for carrying 38 comprising: a container 38 supporting frame 4, and a handle 2 for carrying the unit itself) comprising at least one storage container including
a container shell (38 is shown as a shell of walls) and,
a container caddy (4 with 2, detailed below) including
a container support frame (4) having at least one container-receiving space configured to receive the at least one storage container (38 is shown received in a container receiving space of 4) and
a carrying handle (2) coupled to and extending away from the container support frame (shown coupled to and extending away from 4), wherein
the at least one storage container (38) is removeable such that the at least one storage container is configured to move between the stored position in which the at least one storage container rests on the container caddy in the at least one container-receiving space (Fig 1, 38 is shown resting and contacting the caddy at either portion of it, 4 or 2) and a removed position in which the at least one storage container is spaced apart from the container caddy (Fig 3 shows 38 removed and not in the caddy).
But Meisner does not explicitly teach a tilt bin in the container shell.
Stuart, however, discloses a similar container shell comprising:
a tilt bin (Fig 1 left, a bin tilting) located in the container shell (Fig 1 right, a shell containing the bin, Fig 2) and formed to include an aperture arranged to open into a storage space formed in the tilt bin (a top aperture of the bin is shown opening into a space in the bin), and the tilt bin configured to tilt relative to the container shell between a retracted storage position in which the container shell blocks access to the storage space of the tilt bin through the aperture (relative motion shown from Fig 1 to 2 to have the shell block the aperture while the bin is retracted, Fig 2) and an extended use position in which the tilt bin has tilted away from the container shell to allow access to the storage space through the aperture (Fig 1 shows a bin extended position away from the shell allowing space access).
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 storage unit of Meisner to carry a container shell with tilt bin as taught by Stuart in order to advantageously access contents more conveniently than loosening Meisner’s handle while the caddy is held in use, otherwise the generic container of Meisner is either blocked or silent at best. Also, 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 generic container of Meisner to have the tilt bin and shell shape of Stuart as it is no more than a simple substitution of one container for another that is known in the art for storage and would only produce the predictable results of storing contents in a storage container in a caddy-container unit. MPEP 2143 I-B.
Examiner notes the resultant combination yields the claimed invention via the caddy of Meisner securing the container shell of Stuart that has its tilt bin inside, thereby also reading onto the functional limitation “so that the tilt bin is still able to tilt relative to the container shell between the retracted storage position and the extended use position when the at least one removable storage container is a stored position on the container support frame” since the caddy does not block tilting.
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 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12097995 in view of US Pub 20160194115 by Stuart et al. (hereinafter “Pub”).
Regarding claim 1, claims 1 & 13 of patent ‘995 recite a customizable storage system comprising a first storage unit comprising (claim 1, lines 24-25):
at least one removable storage container including a container shell and a tilt bin located in the container shell (claim 1, lines 26-27) and configured to tilt relative to the container shell between a retracted storage position in which the container shell blocks access to a storage space of the tilt bin and an extended use position in which the tilt bin has tilted away from the container shell to allow access to the storage space of the tilt bin (claim 1, lines 30-35), and
a container caddy comprising: a container support frame (claim 1, line 37) including at least one container-receiving space configured to receive the at least one removable storage container (claim 1, lines 38-40) so that the tilt bin is still able to tilt relative to the container shell between the retracted storage position and the extended use position when the at least one removable storage container is a stored position on the container support frame (claim 1, lines 50-53 wherein the patent “free to change” = the instant “still able to”), and
a carrying handle (claim 1, line 46) including
a main handle body coupled to and extending away from the container support frame (claim 13, lines 54-56) and
at least one attachment arm coupled to the main handle body to pivot between a retracted handle position in which the at least one attachment arm is received in a groove formed in the main handle body of the carrying handle (claim 13, lines 56-60 wherein the patent “attachment arms” includes the instant “at least one attachment arm”) and an extended attachment position in which the at least one attachment arm extends upwardly from the main handle body of the carrying handle at an angle (claim 13, lines 61-64).
Therefore patent ‘995 claim 1 is in essence a “species” of the generic invention of application claim 1. It has been held that a generic invention is “anticipated” by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). MPEP 806.04(i).
But the patent ‘995 claims do not explicitly teach a second storage unit identical to the first.
Pub, however, discloses a first storage unit and a second storage unit (Figs 3-4, upper container system 52 is a first unit, and lower container system 50 is a second unit), each of the first storage unit and the second storage unit comprising: a container caddy (Fig 1, 22 with 44 and at least 16b) comprising a container support frame (at least 16b) and a carry handle (22) including attachment arms (44 shown with projecting edges for going into 48), wherein
at least one attachment arm (44) of the first storage unit (52) is configured to couple with the container support frame of the second storage unit (50) when the at least one attachment arm is in the extended attachment position to removably couple the first storage unit to the second storage unit (Figs 3-4 show first unit extending arm 44 removably coupling/attaching the first unit to the second unit frame) to create an organizational unit that is transportable using the carrying handle of the second storage unit (Figs 3-4, organizational unit 100 is transportable via the second unit handle).
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 first storage unit of Patent ‘995 claims to couple to a second storage unit as taught by Pub, resulting in an identical second unit to the first unit of Patent ‘995 wherein the first unit of Patent ‘995 is removably coupled to its second identical unit via attachment arms of the first to the second’s frame, in order to advantageously more easily carry more contents by having one handle for two units instead of two separate handles preventing use of at least one hand for anything else.
Regarding claim 2, claims 1 & 13 of patent ‘995/Pub recites the carrying handle includes a first attachment arm pivotably coupled to the main handle body at one end of the main handle body and a second attachment arm pivotally coupled to the main handle body at an opposite end of the main handle body (Patent ’995, claim 13, lines 56-60 wherein patent “attachment arms” = instant “first attachment arm” and “second attachment arm”), and wherein the first and second attachment arms of the first storage unit are configured to couple with the container support frame of the second storage unit when the first and second attachment arms are in the extended attachment position to removably couple the first storage unit to the second storage unit (Pub, Figs 3-4 show first unit extending arms 44 removably coupling/attaching the first unit to the second unit frame) to create the organizational unit (Pub, Figs 3-4, organizational unit 100). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 3, claims 1 & 13 of patent ‘995/Pub recites the container support frame includes openings and the first and second attachment arms each have a projecting edge configured to mate with one of the openings in the container support frame (Pub, Figs 3-4, 44s shown with projecting edges for going into openings 48 to mate/couple). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 4, claim 1 of patent ‘995 recites at least one container rotary lock configured rotate between an unlocked position in which the tilt bin of the at least one removable storage container is free to tilt relative to the container shell between the retracted storage position and the extended use position and a locked position in which the tilt bin is blocked from tilting relative to the container shell from the retracted storage position to the extended use position (lines 49-56).
Regarding claim 5, claim 1 of patent ‘995 recites the at least one removable storage container is free to be removed from the at least one container-receiving space of the container support frame when the at least one container rotary lock is in the unlocked position and the at least one removable storage container is blocked from being removed from the at least one container-receiving space of the container support frame when the at least one container rotary lock is in the locked position (lines 49-56; same citation as parent claim 4 since the “removable storage container” is also (still) removable from the same rotary lock unlocked position that allows the tilt bin to tilt).
Regarding claim 6, claim 2 of patent ‘995 recites the at least one container rotary lock is configured to rotate about an axis between the unlocked and locked positions (col 19 line 3, “axis” of rotary lock’s rod “for rotation”, line 6, means pivoting).
Regarding claim 7, claim 2 of patent ‘995 recites a lock rod that extends axially relative to the axis (col 18 last line through col 19 lines 1-3), a lock knob coupled to the lock rod for rotation therewith (col 19 lines 4-6), and a lock arm that extends radially from the lock rod relative to the axis, the lock arm configured to engage the tilt bin when the at least one container rotary lock is in the locked position (col 19 lines 6-9).
Regarding claim 8, claim 3 of patent ‘995 recites a container drop-in lock configured to retain the at least one removable storage container to the container support frame of the container caddy in the stored position on the container caddy to prevent the at least one removable storage container from moving out of the at least one container-receiving space of the container support frame when the tilt bin is moved from the retracted storage position to the extended use position so that the storage space of the tilt bin may be accessed while the at least one removable storage container is in the stored position (all limitations are met by all of claim 3, except the patent has two options to meet the claim limitation hereinabove of “at least one container-receiving space”: “one of the first container-receiving space and the second container-receiving space” meaning said limitation is met by one of these).
Regarding claim 9, claim 4 of patent ‘995 recites the container drop-in lock includes a container connector tab coupled to the container shell of the at least one removable storage container and a container retainer strip coupled to (lines 22-25) the container support frame (line 31).
Regarding claim 10, claim 4 of patent ‘995 recites the container retainer strip defines a tab-receiving slot configured to receive the container connector tab when the at least one removable storage container is in the stored position to retain the at least one removable storage container to the container support frame of the container caddy (lines 27-31).
Claims 14-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13-14 and 16-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12097995.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 of patent ‘995 recites a storage unit comprising at least one storage container including a container shell and a tilt bin located in the container shell and formed to include an aperture arranged to open into a storage space formed in the tilt bin, and the tilt bin configured to tilt relative to the container shell between a retracted storage position in which the container shell blocks access to the storage space of the tilt bin through the aperture and an extended use position in which the tilt bin has tilted away from the container shell to allow access to the storage space through the aperture, and a container caddy including a container support frame having at least one container-receiving space configured to receive the at least one storage container (lines 5-19) so that the tilt bin is still able to tilt relative to the container shell between the retracted storage position and the extended use position when the at least one removable storage container is a stored position on the container support frame (lines 29-36 claim this capability of tilt bin “relative” movement allowance when in the receiving space) and a carrying handle coupled to and extending away from the container support frame (lines 25-26), wherein the at least one storage container is removeable such that the at least one storage container is configured to move between the stored position in which the at least one storage container rests on the container caddy in the at least one container-receiving space and a removed position in which the at least one storage container is spaced apart from the container caddy (lines 16-19 resting stored reception of the container in the caddy frame space, & lines 28-29 locked and unlocked position combined mean the container is removeable, thereby meeting this entirely functional limitation).
Therefore patent ‘995 claim 14 is in essence a “species” of the generic invention of application claim 14. It has been held that a generic invention is “anticipated” by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). MPEP 806.04(i).
Regarding claim 15, claim 16 of patent ‘995 recites a container drop-in lock configured to retain the at least one storage container to the container support frame of the container caddy in the stored position on the container caddy to prevent the at least one storage container from moving out the at least one container-receiving space of the container caddy when the tilt bin is moved from the retracted storage position to the extended use position so that the storage space of the tilt bin may be accessed while the at least one storage container is in the stored position (all limitations are met by all of claim 16, except the patent has two options to meet the claim limitation hereinabove of “at least one container-receiving space”: “one of the first container-receiving space and the second container-receiving space” meaning said limitation is met by one of these).
Regarding claim 16, claim 17 of patent ‘995 recites the container drop-in lock includes a container connector tab coupled to the container shell of the at least one storage container and a container retainer strip coupled to the container support frame (lines 1-5, wherein instead of the frame the patent recites “handle foundation”, but it is “of the container support frame” (parent claim 14 line 26) so no real difference exists).
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 of patent ‘995 recites the container retainer strip defines a tab-receiving slot configured to receive the container connector tab when the at least one storage container is in the stored position to retain the at least one storage container to the container support frame of the container caddy (lines 6-10).
Regarding claim 18, claim 14 of patent ‘995 recites at least one container rotary lock configured rotate between an unlocked position in which the tilt bin of the at least one storage container is free to tilt relative to the container shell between the retracted storage position and the extended use position and a locked position in which the tilt bin is blocked from tilting relative to the container shell from the retracted storage position to the extended use position (lines 28-34).
Regarding claim 19, claim 14 of patent ‘995 recites the at least one storage container is free to be removed from the at least one container-receiving space of the container support frame when the at least one container rotary lock is in the unlocked position and the at least one storage container is blocked from being removed from the at least one container-receiving space of the container support frame when the at least one container rotary lock is in the locked position (lines 28-34; same citation as parent claim 18 since the “removable storage container” is also (still) removable from the same rotary lock unlocked position that allows the tilt bin to tilt).
Regarding claim 20, claim 13 of patent ‘995 recites the carrying handle includes a main handle body coupled to and extending away from the container support frame and at least one attachment arm coupled to the main handle body to pivot between a retracted handle position in which the at least one attachment arm is received in a groove formed in the main handle body of the carrying handle (claim 13, lines 56-60 wherein the patent “attachment arms” includes the instant “at least one attachment arm”) and an extended attachment position in which the at least one attachment arm extends upwardly from the main handle body of the carrying handle at an angle (claim 13, lines 61-64).
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE/Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-13 are 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, in a non-conflicting clear manner of combining the various system/unit elements.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The limitations are sufficient, and examiner did not find references to teach all the limitations of the following claims, particularly as follows:
Claim 11: The limitation “a table top attachment configured to be vertically stacked on top of the organizational unit created by the first and second storage units, the table top attachment including a table top panel and table support legs pivotally coupled to the table top panel to change between a retracted stowed position in which the table support legs confront the table top panel and an extended supporting position in which the table support legs extend perpendicular to the table top panel so as to engage the at least one removable storage container” has sufficiently narrowed the scope of the claim.
Since the table top panel with pivot legs that extend to engage the container is not taught, none of the references anticipate the claimed subject matter.
For illustration purposes, Figure 19 of the examined disclosure shows a table top attachment legs engaging at least the removable storage container, which is different than the references found in including the IDS (see PTO-892 brief descriptions in the conclusion below) which do not teach the table top attachment as claimed.
Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to a skilled artisan to have modified the prior art in order to arrive at the claimed invention without resorting to impermissible hindsight, since the function (i.e. being a storage unit carrying system) was achieved without the same particular structure (i.e. a table top attachment having legs to engage the container atop that system) of the examined invention.
Claims 12-13 would be allowed as depending from an allowed incorporated parent claim (details above).
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.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
US 1112296 – container shell having a tilt bin, but no attached caddy or table (Fig 2)
US 2609072 – table top with top panel and pivot legs, but no attached caddy (Fig 1)
US 5927837 – table top with top panel attached to caddy, but no pivot legs (Figs 5 & 7)
US 6935641 – table top with top panel attached to caddy, but no pivot legs (Fig 2)
US 20020117947 – container shells with tilt bins, but no attached caddy or table (Fig 5)
US 20240049878 – container shells with tilt bins, but no attached caddy or table (Fig 1)
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
Prosecution Insights