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 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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sexton et al. (U.S. 9,976,794).
Regarding claim 1, Sexton et al. teaches an apparatus 10 comprising a housing 10 comprising a receptacle (with walls 12, 14, 16, 18), a first wing 52 coupled to the housing at a first side of the housing (figure 1), and a second wing 50 coupled to the housing at a second side of the housing opposite the first side of the housing (figure 1), wherein the apparatus is configured to adjust between (i) a closed configuration in which the first and second wings are folded down to the housing (50, 52 are moved downwardly; figure 2) and (ii) an open configuration in which the first and second wings (50, 52 extend outwardly; figure 3) extend away from the housing.
Regarding claim 2, a first leg 55 coupled to the first wing 52, and a second leg 55 coupled to the second wing 50 (col. 7 lines 11-16).
Regarding claim 3, in the closed configuration (figure 2) the first leg is folded between the first wing 52 and the first side of the housing 26 (col. 7 lines 11-16), and the second leg 55 is folded between the second wing 50 and the second side of the housing (col. 7 lines 11-16).
Regarding claim 4, in the open configuration (figure 3) the first leg 55 holds up the first wing 52, and the second leg 55 holds up the second wing 50.
Regarding claim 5, the first wing 52 is hingedly coupled at 53 to the first side of the housing at a proximal end of the first wing, the first leg 55 is hingedly coupled to the first wing at a distal end of the first wing 52 (figure 3), the second wing 50 is hingedly coupled to the second side of the housing at 53 at a proximal end of the second wing, (figure 2), and the second leg 55 is hingedly coupled to the second wing at a distal end of the second wing (figure 3).
Regarding claim 7, the first wing 52 comprises a first opening configured to facilitate opening the first wing from the closed configuration (opening is central opening of 52), and the second wing 50 comprises a second opening configured to facilitate opening the second wing from the closed configuration (opening is central opening defined by 50).
Regarding claim 8, in the open configuration (figure 3), the first wing 52 and the second wing 50 are approximately parallel to a base of the housing (figure 3).
Regarding claim 9, a first leg 55 coupled to the first wing 52, and a second leg 55 coupled to the second wing 50, wherein in the closed configuration (figure 2), the first leg 55 is folded between the first wing 52 and the first side of the housing at 26 (col. 7 lines 11-16), and the second leg 55 is folded between the second wing 50 and the second side of the housing (col. 7 lines 11-16), in the open configuration (figure 3), the first leg 55 holds up the first wing 52, the second leg 55 holds up the second wing 50, and the first wing 52 and the second wing 50 are approximately parallel to a base of the housing (figure 3), the first wing 52 is hingedly coupled to the first side of the housing at 53 at a proximal end of the first wing (figure 2), the first leg 55 is hingedly coupled to the first wing at a distal end of the first wing (figure 3), the second wing 50 is hingedly coupled to the second side of the housing at 53 at a proximal end of the second wing (figure 2), and the second leg 55 is hingedly coupled to the second wing at a distal end of the second wing (col. 7 lines 11-16).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sexton et al. (U.S. 9,976,794) in view of Leng (WO 2017/152825A1). Regarding claim 6, Sexton et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the first and second wires and slide restrictors. Leng teaches that it is known to provide supports with first and second wires and slide restrictors (see elements 30 and 60; figure 3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the container of Sexton et al. with first and second wires and slide restrictors, as taught by Leng, in order to reinforce the legs and prevent the legs from pivoting beyond 90 degrees.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art is cited for the alternative configurations of the container.
THIS ACTION IS NON-FINAL.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIKI MARINA ELOSHWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4538. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7: 00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
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, Orlando E. Avilés can be reached at 571-270-5531. 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.
/NIKI M ELOSHWAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights