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 § 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 1-20 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.
Regarding claims 1, 12-14, 17 and 20, the term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) and (a) (2) as being anticipated by US Patent 5607237 issued to LaFleur (Here forth “LaFleur”).
Regarding claim 1, LaFleur discloses a cargo carrying device comprising: a substantially rectangular bottom panel (Fig A of LaFleur, a square is a type of rectangle and the bottom panel is rectangular); a substantially rectangular front panel and a substantially rectangular back panel (Fig A of LaFleur), the front panel and the back panel each connected to the bottom panel (Fig A of LaFleur); a substantially rectangular first side panel and a substantially rectangular second side panel, the first side panel and the second side panel each connected to the bottom panel (Fig A of La Fleur); a polyhedron cargo compartment formed between the front panel, the back panel, the first side panel, the second side panel, and the bottom panel (Fig A of LaFleur, a compartment that is in the shape of a polyhedron is formed between the walls); at least one rigid handle (Fig A of LaFleur, the handle has a degree of rigidity to be able to lift the cargo carrying device up); and at least one side support strap connected to the first side panel (Fig A, side support strap is connected to the first side panel), the bottom panel, and the second side panel (Fig A of LaFleur, the side support strap is connected to the bottom ad second side panel as the strap is connected to other panels that connect to those panels), the at least one side support strap connected to the at least one rigid handle (Fig A of LaFleur, the side support strap is connected to the first rigid handle).
Regarding claim 2, LaFleur further discloses further comprising two rigid handles (Fig A of LaFleur).
Regarding claim 3, La Fleur further disclose further comprising at least two side support straps each connected to the first side panel, the bottom panel, and the second side panel, the at least two side support straps connected on separate strap ends to each of the two rigid handles (Fig A of LaFleur, there are at least two side support straps on the front and back panels at are connected to the first side panel, second side panel, and bottom panel, as they are all connected to the front panels and back panels).
Regarding claim 4, LaFleur further discloses further comprising four side support straps each connected to the first side panel, the bottom panel, and the second side panel, the at least four side support straps connected on separate strap ends to each of the two rigid handles (Fig A of LaFleur, there are four side support straps on the front and back panels at are connected to the first side panel, second side panel, and bottom panel, as they are all connected to the front panels and back panels).
Regarding claim 5, LaFleur further discloses further comprising a plurality of fasteners connecting the at least two side support straps to each of the two rigid handles (Fig A of LaFleur, the support straps are attached to the panels and rigid handles).
Regarding claim 6, LaFleur further discloses wherein the plurality of fasteners fixedly connect the at least two side support straps to each of the two rigid handles so that the two rigid handles do not slide relative to the at least two side support straps (Fig A of LaFleur, the plurality of stitching fixedly connect the side support straps to each of the two rigid handles).
Regarding claim 7, LaFleur discloses The cargo carrying device of claim 5, wherein separate strap ends of the at least two side support straps each form loops to receive the two rigid handles therethrough (Fig A of LaFleur, the straps can be seen to form loops to receive the two rigid handles).
Regarding claim 17, La Fleur discloses a cargo carrying device comprising: a substantially rectangular bottom panel (Fig A of LaFleur, a square is a type of rectangle and the bottom panel is rectangular); a substantially rectangular front panel and a substantially rectangular back panel, the front panel and the back panel each connected to the bottom panel (Fig A of LaFleur); a substantially rectangular first side panel and a substantially rectangular second side panel, the first side panel and the second side panel each connected to the bottom panel (Fig A of LaFleur); a polyhedron cargo compartment formed between the front panel, the back panel, the first side panel, the second side panel, and the bottom panel (Fig A of LaFleur, a compartment that is in the shape of a polyhedron is formed between the walls); a rigid first handle connected to the first side panel (Fig A of LaFleur, the handle has a degree of rigidity to be able to lift the cargo carrying device up); a rigid second handle connected to the second side panel (Fig A of LaFleur); and a plurality of support straps connected to at least one the first and second side panels, the front and back panels, and the bottom panel (Fig A of LaFleur, the support straps are connected to the side panels and back panel as it is connected to the front panel that is connected to those other panels).
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.
Claims 8-11 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaFleur in view of US Patent 5528840 issued to Pajak (Here forth “Pajak”).
Regarding claim 8, LaFleur does not expressly disclose the following Limitations:
Limitation A: rigid board
Pajak discloses a similar container that teaches Limitation A, further comprising a rigid bottom board on the bottom panel (Fig 2-3 of Pajak, bottom panel 20b is rigid; The board is a tri-fold board that has a first side board 20c and second side board 20d hingedly attached between the collapsed configuration and open configuration via a first hinge connecting the first side board to the bottom board and second hinge connecting the second side board to the bottom board).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of LaFleur and Town before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the cargo container of LaFleur to include a tri-fold board within, as taught by Town, to advantageously aid in maintaining the rigidity of the container when necessary.
Regarding claim 9, LaFleur as modified includes all of the limitations including further comprising a rigid first side board connected to the bottom board and foldable between a collapsed configuration and an open configuration, wherein in the open configuration the first side board is positioned against the front panel (See the detailed description of the rejection of claim 8; Fig 2-3 of Pajak).
Regarding claim 10, LaFleur as modified includes all of the limitations including further comprising a rigid second side board connected to the bottom board and foldable between a collapsed configuration and an open configuration, wherein in the open configuration the second side board is positioned against the back panel (See the detailed description of the rejection of claim 8; Fig 2-3 of Pajak).
Regarding claim 11, LaFleur as modified includes all of the limitations including further comprising at least a first hinge connecting the first side board to the bottom board, and at least a second hinge connecting the second side board to the bottom board (See the detailed description of the rejection of claim 8; Fig 2-3 of Pajak).
Regarding claim 18, LaFleur does not expressly disclose the following Limitations:
Limitation B: board structure
Pajak discloses a similar carrying device that teaches Limitation B, further comprising a rigid board structure for defining and strengthening the cargo compartment, the rigid board structure having a rigid bottom board, a rigid first side board pivotally connected on a first edge of the rigid bottom board, and a rigid second side board pivotally connected on a second edge of the rigid bottom board (Fig 2-3 of Pajak, bottom panel 20b is rigid; The board is a tri-fold board that has a first side board 20c and second side board 20d pivotally attached between the collapsed configuration and open configuration via a first pivot connecting the first side board to the bottom board and second pivot connecting the second side board to the bottom board, the first side board can be positioned against the front panel and the second side board can be positioned against the back panel of the container).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of LaFleur and Town before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the cargo container of LaFleur to include a tri-fold board within, as taught by Town, to advantageously aid in maintaining the rigidity of the container when necessary.
Regarding claim 19, LeFleur as modified includes all of the limitations including wherein in an open configuration of the rigid board structure, the first side board is positioned against the front panel, and the second side board is positioned against the back panel (See the detailed description of the rejection of claim 18; Fig 2-3 of Pajak).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaFleur in view of US Publication US2007/0127852 by Town (Here forth “Town”).
Regarding Claim 15, LaFleur does not disclose the following limitations:
Limitation A: cross support strap
Town discloses a similar cargo container that teaches Limitation A, further comprising at least one cross support strap connected to the front panel, the bottom panel, and the back panel (Fig 1 of Town, cross strap 60 is attached to a front panel 3 and supports the drag strap 61; the straps connect to the front panel, bottom panel, and back panel as the cross strap is attached to front panel).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of LaFleur and Town before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the cargo container of LaFleur to include a cross support strap, as taught by Town, to advantageously aid in the movement of the container.
Regarding claim 16, LaFleur does not disclose the following Limitations:
Limitation B: drag strap
Town discloses a similar cargo container that teaches Limitation B, further comprising at least one drag strap connected on one of the front panel, back panel, or two side panels (Fig 1 of Town, cross strap 60 is attached to a front panel 3 and supports the drag strap 61; the straps connect to the front panel, bottom panel, and back panel as the drag strap is attached to front panel).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of LaFleur and Town before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the cargo container of LaFleur to include a drag support strap, as taught by Town, to advantageously aid in the movement of the container.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-14 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 12, LaFleur does not expressly disclose the following Limitations:
Limitation C: further comprising a first opening formed in the first side board, and a second opening formed in the second side board, the first and second openings configured to receive opposite ends of one of the at least one rigid handle and retain one of the first or second side panels in a substantially upright configuration for loading packages and/or other items into the cargo compartment.
Regarding claim 20, LaFleur does not expressly disclose the following limitations:
Limitation D: further comprising a first opening formed in the first side board, and a second opening formed in the second side board, the first and second openings configured to receive opposite ends of the first rigid handle to retain one of the first or second side panels in a substantially upright configuration for loading packages and/or other items into the cargo compartment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA KAVINI TAMIL whose telephone number is (571)272-6655. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-5:00pm.
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.
/JESSICA KAVINI TAMIL/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733 9 January 2026