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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunner et al. (US 10,703,534) in view of Williams (US 5,890,613).
In re claim 1: Brunner et al. discloses a storage system (see figure 6B) comprising:
a first box 110;
a second box 112;
a box-to-box interconnection system 32/58 to releasable interconnected the first box 110 to the second box 112; and
at least one latch (front latch);
wherein each of the first box 110 and the second box 112 comprises a top portion and a bottom portion that define an inner volume for a storage compartment, and the at least one latch is provided on a side wall (front side wall) of each of the first box 110 and the second box 112 to releasably secure the top portion 119 to the bottom portion to enclose the storage compartment thereof, and open and close the top portion relative to the bottom portion independently of the box-to-box interconnection system 32/56 to allow access to the storage compartment when the first box and the second box are interconnected for a stacked configuration (see figure 6G of Brunner et al.).
Brunner et al. discloses the claimed invention as claimed above with the exception of the following claimed limitations that are taught by Williams:
Williams teaches the provision of stacking toolboxes with at least one guide 37 raised and disposed along a surface of the first box, at least one channel 34 disposed along a surface of the second box and dimensioned to receive the guide 37, the guide 37 extending along a dimension of the surface of the first box chosen from a box width and a box length, and the guide 37 having a length that corresponds to the dimension of the surface of the first box chosen from the box width and the box length of the first box; and an integrative locking system 24/25 configured to secure the first box and the second box as two interconnected boxes, the integrative locking system 24/25 having a cleat 24 disposed on one of the two interconnected boxes, and a receptacle 25 configured to receive the cleat 24 and disposed on the other one of the two interconnected boxes (see figures 1 and 1A of Williams).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to replace the container interconnection system of Brunner et al. with the interconnecting system described above as taught by Williams in order to prevent vertical disengagement when in use (see figures 1 and 1A of Williams).
In re claim 2: at least one of the first box and the second box comprises the at least one latch mounted on each of opposite sides (left front side and right front side) of a box to allow opening the top portion from either of the opposite sides (left or right side) of the box (see figure 6G of Brunner et al.).
In re claim 3: when the first box and the second box stacked (see figure 6G), the first box and the second box each comprises the at least one latch mounted on the same facing side wall (see figure 6B of Brunner et al.).
In re claim 4: a dolly 106 with a flat surface, and wheels connected to one side of the flat surface, the first box and the second box being stacked together on an opposite side of the flat surface with the at least one latch mounted on each of the boxes directed from the same facing side wall (see figures 6A and 6B of Brunner et al.).
In re claim 5: the at least one latch (front latch) is configured to allow the top portion 119 to be removably attached from the bottom portion of the corresponding one of the first box 110 and the second box 112 (see figure 6G of Brunner et al.).
In re claim 12: the at least one guide 37 and the at least one channel 34 are configured to prevent relative translational movement between the first box110 and the second box 112 in a first direction corresponding to one of two-dimensional directions comprising an x-axis and a y-axis perpendicular to the x-axis, and the integrative locking system is configured to prevent relative translational movement between the first box 110 and the second box 112 in a second direction corresponding to the other one of the two-dimensional directions (see figures 1 and 1A of Williams).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to replace the container interconnection system of Brunner et al. with the interconnecting system described above as taught by Williams in order to prevent vertical disengagement when in use (see figures 1 and 1A of Williams).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Brunner et al. in view of Williams for the same reason as discussed above in claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-11 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In regards to the Applicant’s arguments regarding the combination of Brunner et al. in view of Williams. The Examiner disagrees, the combination is replacing one interconnecting system with another interconnecting system would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed. Completely preventing vertical disengagement would be desired because the prior art of Brunner et al. fails to include a structure that completely prevent removal of the container when moved in a vertical position. For example, when multiple boxes are stacked and driving on a work sight of uneven ground the containers of Brunner et al. can disengage structurally from each other. However, this would nor happen at all with the structural interconnecting system of Williams because the system does not allow for vertical movement at all. In addition to this benefit additional benefits such as where there is a specific height space is required, in which stacking the boxes from above will not work but a sliding stacking system would work. A claimed invention is unpatentable if the differences between it and the prior art are "such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art." 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (2000); In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 13-14, 148 USPQ 459, 464-65 (1966)). The Federal Circuit has repeatedly recognized that to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the references being combined do not need to explicitly suggest combining their teachings. See e.g., Kahn, 441 F.3d at 987-88, 78 USPQ2d at 1336 ("the teaching, motivation, or suggestion may be implicit from the prior art as a whole, rather than expressly stated in the references"); and In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401, 1403, 7 USPQ2d 1500, 1502 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ("for the purpose of combining references, those references need not explicitly suggest combining teachings"). "[W]hen the question is whether a patent claiming the combination of elements of prior art is obvious" the relevant question is "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S 1727, 1731, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). It is proper to take account of the "inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." (Id.) See also, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 1727, 1742 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) ("A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.").
In regards to the arguments regarding the limitation of the latches mounted on opposite sides. The Applicant is specifically arguing that the prior art fails to teach latches that are positioned on two separate sidewalls of the box. However, that is not what is being claimed, the claimed limitation just requires latches to be on opposites sides of the box, which the prior art teaches. In accordance with MPEP 2111.01, during examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
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 ERNESTO A GRANO whose telephone number is (571)270-3927. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:30 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, 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.
/ERNESTO A GRANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights