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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 06/15/2026 (hereinafter “amendment”) has been accepted and entered. Claims 1, 3-10 and 12-18 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
A though hole as recited in claim 3, currently the reference number 141 is used for the through hole and is directed to the cover part/interior of the container.
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because of the following:
Reference characters "141" and "13" have both been used to designate the cover body parts in Fig. 4.
Reference characters "14" and "143" have both been used to designate the panel in Fig. 4.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Applicant states the pointed-to location of the leader line for reference 14 what the reference numerals 141 and 13 are. There is no through hole shown in Fig. 4. There is the opening 11 and the interior of container. Applicant state component 13 closes both ends of the through hole, but if 13 is missing from the top and the bottom there is no container just side panels yet to be connected. Reference number 14 is still directed towards the panel 143. As such the objections are not withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
Claims 4, 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 4, 10 and 13 all recite “snap-fit”. There is no support in the specification as originally filed for the limitation snap-fit.
Claims not specifically mentioned are included due to their dependencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 2-18 are 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 3 and 12 recite “a main body part, having a through hole and the opening, the opening communicating with the through hole and the cover body parts covering the main body part and blocking at least part of the through hole”, this is unclear. Applicant argues that the main body part 14 is explicitly shown as a rectangular tubular structure formed by enclosing surrounding plates and a frame. Examiner disagrees. No rectangular tubular structure is shown. The frame 144 is shown in Fig. 8 and appears to be part of the panel. Applicant states the entire internal space being the through hole 141, which is formed by enclosing surrounding plates and a frame. This is unclear. What is the hole through? Is it just the interior of the assembled container? Is the main body part the storage apparatus without the top and the bottom panel attached? Applicant further states the cover body 13 is not used to close the entire through hole, but rather to seal the two ends of the through hole. This is unclear. If both ends of a through hole are sealed how it the entire through hole not covered? This limitation remains unclear.
Claim 3 and 12 recite “wherein at least two cover body parts in the cover body parts are provided, at least one of the cover body parts is located on a side of the main body part, at least one other of the cover body parts is located on an other side of the main body part, and the storage cavity is enclosed by the at least two cover body parts and at least part of the main body part”, this is unclear. The relationship between the main body part and cover body parts is unclear. It is unclear if the claim language is directed to the disclosed embodiment. As show the cover body parts are on the top and the bottom of the main body part and not on a side. Further it is unclear if this is a translation error. Also how is the storage cavity enclosed as there is a through hole in the main body part previously claimed? Is there something that will fully block the through hole? Is the through hole a mistranslation? Is the storage cavity partially or majority enclosed by the cover parts and main body? Is this also when the door is in a closed position? This claim is generally unclear.
Claim 4 and 13 recite “each of the second snap fit parts is a recess…the each of the second snap fit parts is a protrusion”, this is unclear. These cannot be true at the same time. Is the applicant trying to claim the second snap fit part includes both recesses and protrusions?
Claim 5 and 14 recite “the opening is formed on the frames”, this is unclear. Is there an opening on all the frames? Within the frame? Does the applicant mean the frame is the perimeter of the opening?
Claim 7 and 16 recite “at least part of the annular limiting structure and the door body are limited and stopped”, this is unclear. How is the annular limiting structure limited and stopped? Doesn’t the annular limiting structure stop the door? Does the applicant mean the annular limiting structure is configured to limit and stop the door body in the closed configuration?
Claim 8 and 17 recite “ the first magnetic attraction structure and at least part of the second magnetic attraction structure are both made from ferromagnetic materials”, this is unclear. Does the applicant mean they have magnets? Ferromagnetic materials are not always magnets. Does this require at least one of the structures to be a magnet so as to attract the other of the structures? If both are non-magnetic ferromagnetic materials but would attract a magnet and thus be a “magnetic attraction structure”, does this require one or both to be magnet?
Claims not specifically addressed are included due to their dependencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ahmed US 2020/0385167 A1, herein after referred to as Ahmed.
Regarding claim 1 Ahmed discloses a storage apparatus (2 display kit, Fig. 1-4), comprising:
a storage structure (Figs. 2-3), having a storage cavity and an opening communicating with the storage cavity (interior of kit, Fig. 4), the storage cavity being configured to store an item to be stored (paragraph [0004]; and
a door body assembly (26 front door panel, Figs. 1-4) comprising a door body (central panel) and a connecting structure (22 first hinge fitting and 34 pivot member, Fig. 4 STEP I), the door body being flippably arranged at the opening through the connecting structure (Fig. 2-4), and the door body having a closed state flipped toward the storage structure to block at least part of the opening (Fig. 2) and an open state flipped away from the storage structure to avoid the opening (Fig. 4);
wherein the connecting structure (22) has a connecting part (34 pivot member), the connecting part is rotatably arranged on an inner wall of the opening (Fig. 4 STEP I), an outer surface of the storage structure having the opening is a first surface (edge 40), and when the door body is in the closed state, the connecting part is located between the door body and the first surface (Fig. 4 STEP I and IV),
wherein a first preset distance L1 is provided between the connecting part (34) and the door body (front of panel 26), a second preset distance L2 is provided between the connecting part (34) and the first surface (40), and the first preset distance L1 and the second preset distance L2 satisfy: L1>L2 (the distances are equal as the connecting part is offset the same distance as the front of panel 26 and edge 40 as they are flush when in the closed state shown in Figs. 2-3); the first preset distance L1 is a distance between the door body and a rotating axis of the connecting part in a horizontal direction; the second preset distance L2 is a distance between the rotating axis of the connecting part and the first surface in the horizontal direction.
Regarding claim 7 Ahmed disclosed the storage apparatus according to claim 1 and further discloses an annular limiting structure (84 front stop member, 96 side stop member, and 18 front edge), the annular limiting structure being arranged in the opening (Figs. 1 and 4 STEP IV);
wherein, when the door body is in the closed state, at least part of the door body is limited and stopped (paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 9 Ahmed disclosed the storage apparatus according to claim 1 and further discloses wherein at least part of the door body is made of a transparent material; and/or, at least part of the storage structure is made of a transparent material (paragraph [0003] lines 1-6 and the apparatus is to display the contents held within it, thusly in order to function the contents must be seen otherwise it is no longer a display but merely a storage box).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “page 4 of the specification of the present application explicitly states: "one of the first snap-fit part and each of the second snap-fit parts is a recess, the other of the first snap-fit part and the each of the second snap-fit parts is a protrusion, and the protrusion extends into the recess and is in snap-fit with the recess to connect the main body part and the cover body part"”, examiner disagrees. The specification does not recite “snap-fit” at all. Applicant argues "one of the first snap-fit part and the second snap- fit part is a recess, and the other of the first snap-fit part and the second snap-fit part is a protrusion." The logic of this expression is clear: in each pair of snap-fitting structures, there are only two possible combinations-either the cover body part has the recess, and the main body part has the protrusion, or the cover body part has the protrusion, and the main body part has the recess.” Examiner agrees with the logic of how a snap fit protrusion and recess function, but disagrees that is what is being claimed. The claim recites “each of the second snap fit parts is a recess” and “each of the second snap fits parts is a protrusion”, so every second snap fit part is both a protrusion and a recess. It is unclear what is being claimed and as stated above there is no support for the use of snap fit. Applicant argues that “the annular limiting structure serves as a stopper that provides passive blocking” and “the interaction between then is unidirectional “structural blocking of movement””, this is not what is claimed. The claim recites “when the door body is in the closed state, at least part of the annular limiting structure and the door body are limited and stopped”. As recited above does the applicant mean when in the closed state the door body is limited and stopped by the annular limiting structure? Applicant argues that specification clearly states: "one of the first suction structure 61 and the second suction structure 62 is a magnet sheet, and the other of the first suction structure 61 and the second suction structure 62 is an iron sheet". That is, after reading claim 8 and the entire specification, a person skilled in the art can clearly understand that this structure achieves the magnetic attraction function by having one part be a permanent magnet (magnet piece) and the other part be a ferromagnetic material (iron piece). While the specification recite one is a magnet and the other is a ferromagnetic material, that is not what is recited by the claim.
Applicant does not discuss how Ahmed does not meet the claimed limitations, just a general statement that claim 1 has distinguishing limitations. Applicant discusses how the amended limitations to claim 1 allow for the door of the instant application to function, but not that Ahmed does not have the two preset distances. As discussed above, Ahmed does have the two preset distances, and they are equal as the claims says L1 maybe be greater than or equal to the L2.
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 Lauren Kmet whose telephone number is (313)446-4834. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571) 272-4561. 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.
/L KMET/ Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/Anthony D Stashick/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights