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.
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 6-9 and 16-19 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.
Claims 6 and 16 recite the limitation "wherein said two vertical sides". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the independent claims recite “two short vertical sides” and “two long vertical sides”, such that it is not clear which of these sides are the “said two vertical sides”. For the purposes of Examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “said two long vertical sides”.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 11-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 6,793,271 (Deets hereinafter) in view of US PG Pub No. 2017/0113870 (Looker hereinafter).
In re claim 1, with reference to Figs. 1 and 2, Deets discloses: A device comprising: a vessel (10) sized and shaped to accommodate at least one motor vehicle (i.e. a scooter), wherein said vessel has two short vertical sides (48, 52) having a first width and two long vertical sides (34) having a second width (see Fig. 2 below).
It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed (“to accommodate at least one motor vehicle”) does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114, II.
[AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Second Width)][AltContent: textbox (First Width)][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
723
522
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Deets fails to disclose wherein at least one of said two long vertical sides comprises an opening having a third width; wherein said third width is at least 45% of the second width.
[AltContent: textbox (Opening/ Third width)][AltContent: ]However, with reference to Figs. 1-4, Looker discloses a vessel (10) having a long vertical side having a second width, in which an opening is formed, the opening covered by a sliding door (14 shown shaded below, see paragraph 0008 and 0014), wherein said third width is at least 45% of the second width (approximately 70% as shown below.
[AltContent: textbox (Fixed Portions)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Long Vertical Side/ Second Width)][AltContent: ][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
538
657
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the long side of Deets to have included an opening closed by a sliding door along the long side as taught by Looker for the purposes of facilitating access to side portions of loaded content, and/or to contents otherwise blocked by contents loaded after, which would block a single end door of Deets.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have sized the opening to be a width of a certain range relative to the long vertical size, such as approximately 70% as taught by Looker, since it has been held that the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04 IV, A).
In re claim 2, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Deets in view of Looker disclose the claimed invention including wherein said second width is greater than said first width (see Fig. 2 above).
In re claim 3, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Deets in view of Looker disclose the claimed invention except wherein said first width is 8’ and wherein said second width is 20’.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have specified the dimensions of the trailer of Deets (shown relative to a known tractor trailer) as being 8’ by 20’, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 026-027 applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
In re claim 4, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Deets in view of Looker disclose the claimed invention including wherein at least one of said two long vertical sides is constructed of transparent (Deets claim 12) or semi-transparent material.
In re claim 5, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Deets in view of Looker disclose the claimed invention including wherein at least one sliding door configured to cover said opening (as in re claim 1 above).
In re claim 6, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Deets in view of Looker disclose the claimed invention including wherein said two vertical sides have a first height, and said at least one sliding door has a second height, wherein said first height and said second height are the same (see Looker Fig. 1 above).
In re claim 7, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Deets in view of Looker disclose the claimed invention including wherein said at least one sliding door consists of two sliding doors (paragraph 0013), but not wherein said two sliding doors are constructed of a transparent or semi-transparent material.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have formed the sliding doors to be transparent in the combination above, as the walls of Deets are taught by be transparent panels (Deets claim 12), while forming the doors as instead opaque would be a detriment to the design of Deets.
In re claim 8, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Deets in view of Looker disclose the claimed invention including wherein at least one of said two long vertical sides comprises two fixed portions and two sliding doors, and wherein said two sliding doors are centered at a midpoint of said second width (see Fig. 1 of Looker, closure at 20 located at approximate midpoint).
In re claim 11, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Deets in view of Looker disclose: A vehicle containment device comprising: a vessel sized and shaped to accommodate at least one motor vehicle, wherein said vessel has two short vertical sides having a first width and two long vertical sides having a second width; wherein at least one of said two long vertical sides comprises an opening having a third width; wherein said third width is at least 45% of the second width (as in re claim 1 above).
In re claim 12, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Deets in view of Looker disclose the claimed invention including wherein said second width is greater than said first width (as in re claim 2 above).
In re claim 13, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Deets in view of Looker disclose the claimed invention including wherein said first width is 8’ and wherein said second width is 20’ (as in re claim 3 above).
In re claim 14, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Deets in view of Looker disclose the claimed invention including wherein at least one of said two long vertical sides is constructed of transparent or semi-transparent material (as in re claim 4 above).
In re claim 15, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Deets in view of Looker disclose the claimed invention including wherein at least one sliding door configured to cover said opening (as in re claim 5 above).
In re claim 16, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Deets in view of Looker disclose the claimed invention including wherein said two vertical sides have a first height, and said at least one sliding door has a second height, wherein said first height and said second height are the same (as in re claim 6 above).
In re claim 17, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Deets in view of Looker disclose the claimed invention including wherein said at least one sliding door consists of two sliding doors, and wherein said two sliding doors are constructed of a transparent or semi-transparent material (as in re claim 7 above).
In re claim 18, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Deets in view of Looker disclose the claimed invention including wherein at least one of said two long vertical sides comprises two fixed portions and two sliding doors, and wherein said two sliding doors are centered at a midpoint of said second width (as in re claim 8 above).
Claim(s) 9, 10, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deets in view of Looker as applied to Claims 1, 8, 11, and 18 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 4,854,460 (Josephs hereinafter).
In re claims 9, 10, 19, and 20, Deets in view of Looker disclose the claimed invention except wherein at least one of said two short vertical sides comprises a fold-down ramp.
However, with reference to Figs. 12 and 13, Josephs discloses a storage and transport vessel wherein a vertical side (26, 27) comprises a fold-down ramp (200) (Column 3, lines 47-61).
PNG
media_image3.png
495
730
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified at least one of the two short vertical sides to of Deets to have included a fold-down ramp as taught by Josephs for the purposes of facilitating easy loading/unloading of the vessel with the use of wheeled vehicles such as carts, forklifts (Josephs, columns 3-4, lines 62-3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW T KIRSCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5723. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9a-5p 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 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.
/ANDREW T KIRSCH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733