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 .
Priority
The Office notes that on Applicant’s 11/13/2024 Application Data Sheet Applicant claims priority to “18901581”. The above appears to be incorrect. Applicant may have intended to claim priority to - -18901281 - -.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Interpretation
The Office notes that Applicant has replaces instances of “the” with “said” of which the same interpretation is provided by Applicant with respect to the above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 7, 11, 16, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Buonerba (US 11643003 B1)
Buonerba discloses:
1. An apparatus (figs 1-23) for use in a shipping container for selectively carrying solid freight and bulk liquid freight (capable of performing the above intended use), comprising: a first side frame extending longitudinally with respect to said shipping container and fixedly secured thereto (adjacent 20); a second side frame extending longitudinally with respect to said shipping container and fixedly secured thereto (adjacent 30); a front frame positioned between said first and second side frames (adjacent 12); a collapsible liquid container operatively arranged substantially between said first and second side frames (element as in col. 8: 60-67), comprising: a liquid impermeable outer liner (adjacent 80); a liquid impermeable inner bladder arranged within said outer liner (adjacent 72); and, a fluid conduit in fluid communication with said inner bladder (adjacent 74); a rear fame removably affixed to said first and second side frames opposite said front frame (adjacent 40); and, at least one baffle operatively arranged to be positioned between said first and second side frames and on top of said collapsible liquid container, wherein said collapsible liquid container is adapted to be removably pinned at least partially within said frame via said at least one baffle (baffles adjacent 90A, 90B capable of performing the above intended use).
2. The apparatus recited in Claim 1, where said at least one baffle comprises: a first baffle operatively arranged to be positioned between said first and second side frames and on top of said collapsible liquid container, and, a second baffle operatively arranged to be positioned between said first and second side frames and on top of said collapsible liquid container and spaced apart from said first baffle (baffles adjacent 90A, 90B).
4. The apparatus recited in Claim 2, wherein each of said first and second baffles comprise: a channel disposed within a top face and pair of side faces (edges of baffle as in figs 5, 6 with channel between edges and element 98), said channel operatively arranged to accept a support member therein (capable of performing the above intended use)
7. The apparatus recited in Claim 1 further comprising: at one retaining cover adapted to at least partially cover a space disposed between said side frames (304 capable of performing the above intended use), said at one retaining cover retractably secured to a top surface one of said side frames and removably secured to a top surface of the opposite side frame, said at least one retaining cover further adapted to pin said at least one baffle onto said liquid container (figs 23 capable of performing the above intended use).
11. The apparatus recited in Claim 1, wherein said at least one baffle is configured to absorb energy from liquid disposed in said collapsible liquid container (capable of performing the above intended use).
Buonerba discloses:
16. An apparatus (Figs 1-23) for use in a shipping container for selectively carrying solid freight and bulk liquid freight (capable of performing the above intended use), comprising: a first side frame / a frame members (element as in col. 8: 60-67), comprising
Though not required the Office notes that with respect to being concave, the Office notes that Watkins discloses similar art to the above and also disclose concave faces (such as with 48, 50 in fig 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Buonerba in view of Watkins (by providing the above shapes to portions of the device) in order to permit additional flow of the contents in order to help control forces within the device and prevent unintentional and desired damage.
20. The apparatus recited in Claim 16 further comprising: the cover .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 3, 5, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buonerba as applied to claims 2, 1, 16 above, and further in view of Watkins (US 4611724 A).
Re: claim 3 and 5, Buonerba discloses the above claimed limitations including wherein each of said first and second baffles comprise: a top face and a bottom face bounded by a pair of side faces (edges of baffle as in figs 5, 6); a pair of faces disposed between said top and bottom faces (Edges between top and bottom); and, a channel arranged within said pair of faces and said bottom face (with channel between edges and element 98); a front end baffle arranged at least partially within said frames and proximate said front frame (adajcent 90a), said front end baffle having: a top face and bottom face bounded by a pair of side faces (edges of device at top and bottom); a face disposed between said top and bottom faces and facing said rear frame and, a rear face disposed between said top and bottom faces and facing said front frame (bottom and rear edge).
With respect to being concave, the Office notes that Watkins discloses similar art to the above and also discloses concave faces (such as with 48, 50 in fig 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Buonerba in view of Watkins (by providing the above shapes to portions of the device) in order to permit additional flow of the contents in order to help control forces within the device and prevent unintentional and desired damage.
Re claim 17, the Office notes that Watkins discloses similar art to the above and also disclose concave faces (such as with 48, 50 in fig 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Buonerba in view of Watkins (by providing the above shapes to portions of the device) in order to permit additional flow of the contents in order to help control forces within the device and prevent unintentional and desired damage.
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buonerba as applied to claims 3, 5 above, and further in view of Stedman (US 4764408 A).
Re: claims 12-14, Buonerba discloses the claimed invention above with the exception of the following which is disclosed by Stedeman: one or more of an open cell foam or a closed cell foam (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Buonerba in view of Stedman (by providing the above known materials) to provide known materials with desired weight and strength characteristics in order to further protect and control the flow of the contents of the device.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-7, 9-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-20 of prior U.S. Patent No. US 12337745 B1. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 8, 10, 15, 18-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be potentially allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims (the Office notes the Double Patenting rejection above).
Claim 9 would be potentially 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 (the Office notes the Double Patenting rejection above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states that the frames of the prior art are not “fixed secured” to the container. The Office notes that between figures 1 and figures 2, the above element are still “fixedly secured” to the container despite the movement of the supports below. Applicant then states that the secondary reference does not provide the above, but as evidenced above the primary reference already discloses the above. In response to applicant's argument that the secondary reference taches baffles that are welded, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Applicant then provides the statement with respect to “fixedly secured” of which has already been addressed above. Applicant then states that the pror art does not disclose a cover. The primary reference discloses a cover secured to frame and extending over baffles to pin the battles onto the container (adjacent 304 capable of performing the above intended use). Applicant then states that the claims are not coextensive but Applicant states they have amended the claims to no longer be coextensive. Claims 1-7, 9-20 remain coextensive and the double patenting rejection is maintained. Accordingly, Applicant/Appellant has not demonstrated error in the factual findings or reasoning set forth by the Office and the Office must maintain the rejections.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANDREW D PERREAULT whose telephone number is (571)270-5427. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00am-5:30pm.
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.
/ANDREW D PERREAULT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights