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 Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim depends on itself. Appropriate correction is required.
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 5 and 17 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 5 and 17 recites the limitation "the first track insert” and “the second track insert". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. It appears that claim 5 may have been intended to depend from claim 4 where the first and second track inserts are first claimed.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miller (US 2,590,028).
Regarding claim 1, Miller (figs. 1-3) discloses a container comprising:
a base portion (the container without the door 18); and
a support portion 18 movably-connected to the base portion, wherein each of the base portion and the support portion 18,22 include a plurality of panels and members,
wherein the base portion forms a support portion receiving cavity or compartment configured for receiving the support portion 18, 22,
wherein the plurality of panels and members forming the base portion include at least a first leg member 12, 25 and a second leg member 12, 25, wherein: a first guide track 40 is formed through an inner side surface of the first leg member 12, 25; and a second guide track 36 is formed through an inner side surface of the second leg member 12, 15.
Regarding claim 2, Miller further discloses each of the first guide track 40 and the second guide track 36 is a bored channel (col. 2, lines 25-28).
Regarding claim 3, Miller further discloses the bored channel extends into at least a portion of a thickness of each of the first leg member 12, 25 and the second leg member 12, 15 from, respectively, the inner side surface of the first leg member and the inner side surface of the second leg member (figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 18, Miller (figs. 1-3) discloses a container 10 comprising:
a base portion (the container without the door 18); and
a support portion 18, 22 movably-connected to the base portion, wherein a first guide track 40 bored into an inner side surface of at least one leg member of the base portion, wherein a second guide track 36 bored into the inner side surface of the at least one leg member of the base portion.
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 4-6 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US 2,590,028) in view of Kann (US 3,534,517).
Regarding claim 4, Miller discloses all elements of the claimed invention as applied to claim 1 above but fails to disclose:
a first track insert that is disposed within the first guide track; and
a second track insert that is disposed within the second guide track, wherein each of the first track insert and the second track insert is an elongate body having a channel.
However, Kann teaches recesses of panels being provided with channel members or track inserts 132, 133 (figs. 25, 35 and col. 13, lines 69-75).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute track inserts within recesses as, for example, taught by the Kann reference for the bracket with tracks of Miller, to minimize manufacturing cost while still providing wear resistance. Also, such a substitution would have been motivated by routine design considerations, since it has been held that when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 50-51, 148 USPQ 479, 483 (1966)).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Miller further discloses one or both of the first track insert and the first guide track 40 being configured to be curved, arcuate, or substantially non-linear; and
one or both of the second track insert and the second guide track 36 being configured to be non- curved, non-arcuate, or substantially linear (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Miller further discloses the elongate body being defined by an outer surface, an inner surface, and a side surface that joins the outer surface to the inner surface of the elongate body, wherein the inner surface of the elongate body defines the channel extending through the elongate body from the side surface (fig. 35 of Kann).
Regarding claim 22, Miller discloses all elements of the claimed invention except for:
a first track insert that is disposed within the first guide track; and
a second track insert that is disposed within the second guide track, wherein each of the first track insert and the second track insert is an elongate body having a channel.
However, Kann teaches recesses of panels being provided with channel members or track inserts 132, 133 (figs. 25, 35 and col. 13, lines 69-75).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute track inserts within recesses as, for example, taught by the Kann reference for the bracket with tracks of Miller, to minimize manufacturing cost while still providing wear resistance. Also, such a substitution would have been motivated by routine design considerations, since it has been held that when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 50-51, 148 USPQ 479, 483 (1966)).
Claims 13-17 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US 2,590,028) in view of Burchett (US5,978,988).
Regarding claims 13-14, Miller discloses all elements of the claimed invention except for:
at least one damper connected to one or both of the base portion and the support portion for one or both of: resisting movement of the support portion relative the base portion in a first direction; and assisting movement of the support portion relative the base portion in a second direction opposite the first direction;
wherein the damper includes: a first portion connected to the base portion, wherein the first portion of the damper includes: a hydraulic arm including a first end connected to the base portion;
a hydraulic arm bracket connected to a second end of the hydraulic arm; the first guide track connected to the base portion; and the second guide track connected to the base portion.
However, Burchett teaches a base and a support portion having the claimed damper or piston 24 (fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have provided the device of Miller, a damper, to resist the force of gravity and assisting the user in rotating the support portion, as taught by Burchett in col. 3, lines 65-67.
Regarding claim 15, Miller further discloses the second guide track 36 being arranged substantially perpendicularly with respect to the first guide track 40 (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Miller further discloses the damper further includes a second portion connected to the support portion, wherein the second portion of the damper includes:
a first pivot portion 23 connected to the support portion 18, wherein the first pivot portion 23 is movably-disposed within the first guide track 40 of the first portion of the damper;
a second pivot portion 20 connected to the support portion, wherein the second pivot portion 20 is movably-disposed within the second guide track 36 of the first portion of the damper; and
wherein the hydraulic arm bracket is connected to the support portion 18 (fig. 3 of Miller and fig. 5 of Burchett).
Regarding claim 17, Miller further discloses the first pivot portion 23 includes a pivot axle movably- disposed within the channel of the first track in a first direction, wherein the second pivot portion 20 is movably-disposed within the channel of the second track in a second direction, wherein the first direction is substantially perpendicular to the second direction (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 19, Miller discloses at least one damper that connects the base portion to the support portion, wherein the at least one damper includes:
a first pivot portion 23 connected to the support portion, wherein the first pivot portion is movably-disposed within the first guide track;
a second pivot portion 20 connected to the support portion, wherein the second pivot portion is movably-disposed within the second guide track.
However, Miller fails to disclose a hydraulic arm including a first end connected to the base portion and a second end connected to the support portion.
Burchett teaches a base and a support portion having the claimed hydraulic arm or piston 24 (fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have provided the device of Miller, a hydraulic arm, to resist the force of gravity and assisting the user in rotating the support portion, as taught by Burchett in col. 3, lines 65-67.
Regarding claim 20, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 21, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 7, 10-12 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US 2,590,028) in view of Kann (US 3,534,517) further in view of Rosenberg (US 7,147,120).
Regarding claims 7 and 23, Miller further discloses the inner surface of the elongate body being defined by: a first portion that is substantially flat having no surface interruptions (fig. 3). However, the modified Miller fails to disclose a second portion having a plurality of serrations.
Rosenberg teaches guide slots 70 being provided with serrated teeth 74 (fig. 9B and col. 7, lines 46-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have provided the inner surface of the elongated body of the modified Miller, serrated teeth, to create an interlocking arrangement such that a user can adjust the opening to a desired height, as taught by Rosenberg in col. 7, lines 46-55.
Regarding the plurality of serrations being provided only on a second portion, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide teeth only on a portion of the guide slot where positional locking is desired, since detents are routinely placed only at selected positions to allow smooth sliding elsewhere.
Regarding claim 8, the modified Miller further discloses the channel formed by the elongate body of the first track insert is defined by:
a first inner end portion of a first segment of the inner surface of the elongate body; a second inner end portion of a second segment of the inner surface of the elongate body that is opposite the second inner end portion;
a front inner portion of a third segment of the inner surface of the elongate body; and
a rear inner portion of a fourth segment of the inner surface of the elongate body that is opposite the rear inner portion (fig. 3 of Miller and fig. 35 of Kann).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Miller further discloses, the plurality of serrations are formed by some of a front inner portion of the inner surface of the elongate body and are arranged near the first inner end portion, since the serrations are only provided on a portion of the guide slot where positional locking is desired.
Regarding claims 10-12, the extend of the serrations along the guide track is a result effective variable and it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAINE GIRMA NEWAY whose telephone number is (571)270-5275. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM- 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, 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.
/BLAINE G NEWAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/Anthony D Stashick/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights