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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20130053190) in view of Tian (CN 221879128).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses, A container locking apparatus (See annotated fig. below), comprising: at least one pinhole part (See annotated fig. below) formed at a portion of a container; and a fixing pin device (See annotated fig. below) formed at another portion of the container to correspond to the pinhole part, and slidably formed such that at least a portion of the fixing pin device can be inserted into the pinhole part to lock a portion of the container (Fig. 4), wherein the pin hole part guides the fixing pin device to be easily inserted when insertion of the fixing pin device begins, and makes the fixing pin device to firmly fix the pinhole part when insertion of the fixing pin device is completed.
PNG
media_image1.png
430
759
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kim discloses the pinhole part to be regular rectangular pinhole but Kim does not explicitly disclose, wherein the pinhole part comprises a regular trapezoidal pinhole part with an overall positive trapezoidal shape or an inverse trapezoidal pinhole part with an overall negative trapezoidal shape.
Tian shows that trapezoid was an equivalent structure known in the art. In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness-type rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art. See MPEP 2144.06(II). Tian represents evidence that trapezoid were art-recognized equivalent structures for rectangular (Tian; “the shape of the lock hole 21 can be rectangular or oval or trapezoid and so on”). Therefore, because these two shapes of lock openings were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute trapezoidal shape for rectangular shape. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. See MPEP 2144.06(II)
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses, the pinhole part is two or more, and the plural pinhole parts are formed on side surfaces of movable posts (130) adjusted in height by expanding and contracting from a side wall of the container, and the fixing pin device is formed on the side wall of the container to be inserted into one of the pinhole parts formed at the movable posts, thereby locking the movable posts (“The fixing plate 150 is inserted into the pinhole PH […] so that the movable column 130 can be inserted into the pinhole PH, (130) may be firmly fixed to the folding plate (120).)
Regarding claim 3, Kim as modified discloses, the pinhole part is a regular trapezoidal pinhole part, and a first through-hole part (fig. 4; through hole in which pin 150 goes) formed on the side wall of the container is an trapezoidal through-hole part.
However, Kim as modified does not disclose, a first through-hole part to be an inverted trapezoidal. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have an inverted trapezoidal first through hole, since it requires a simple rearrangement of part(i.e., invert of trapezoidal shape) .It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 4, Kim as modified discloses, the pinhole part is a trapezoidal pinhole part, does not disclose, the pinhole part is an inverse trapezoidal pinhole part, a first through-hole part to be an inverted trapezoidal. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have the pinhole part is an inverse trapezoidal pinhole part, a first through-hole part to be an inverted trapezoidal, since it requires a simple rearrangement of part(i.e., invert of trapezoidal shape) .It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 5, Kim discloses, the at least one pinhole part (hole in which pin F goes in) is formed on a side wall that is rotated about a hinge axis to be expanded or folded from a bottom plate of the container, and the fixing pin device (Fig. 4; F)is formed on the bottom plate of the container to be inserted into the pinhole part formed at the side wall, thereby locking the side wall.
Regarding claim 6, Kim as modified discloses, wherein the pinhole part is a regular trapezoidal pinhole part and a second through hole part that is oval (Fig. 4; hole through which 4 goes) but does not disclose, second through-hole part formed at the bottom plate of the container is an inverted trapezoidal through-hole part.
Tian shows that trapezoid was an equivalent structure known in the art. In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness-type rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art. See MPEP 2144.06(II). Tian represents evidence that trapezoid were art-recognized equivalent structures for oval (Tian; “the shape of the lock hole 21 can be rectangular or oval or trapezoid and so on”). Therefore, because these two shapes of lock openings were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute trapezoidal shape for oval shape. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. See MPEP 2144.06(II).
With regards to the shape being inverted, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have an inverted trapezoidal first through hole, since it requires a simple rearrangement of part(i.e., invert of trapezoidal shape by rearrangement of shape) .It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 7, Kim as modified discloses, the pinhole part is a trapezoidal pinhole part.
However, Kim discloses, the pinhole part is an inverse trapezoidal pinhole part,
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have the pinhole part is an inverse trapezoidal pinhole part, since it requires a simple rearrangement of part(i.e., invert of trapezoidal shape by rearranging shape) .It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Kim discloses a second through hole part that is oval (Fig. 4; hole through which F goes) but does not disclose, second through-hole part formed at the bottom plate of the container is an inverted trapezoidal through-hole part.
Tian shows that trapezoid was an equivalent structure known in the art. In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness-type rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art. See MPEP 2144.06(II). Tian represents evidence that trapezoid were art-recognized equivalent structures for oval (Tian; “the shape of the lock hole 21 can be rectangular or oval or trapezoid and so on”). Therefore, because these two shapes of lock openings were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute trapezoidal shape for oval shape. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. See MPEP 2144.06(II).
With regards to the shape being inverted, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have the pinhole part is an inverse trapezoidal pinhole part, since it requires a simple rearrangement of part(i.e., invert of trapezoidal shape by rearranging shape) .It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 8, Kim discloses, the fixing pin device comprises: a fixing pin (150) whose at least a portion is inserted into the pinhole part (Fig. 4); a guider (G) formed on a side wall or bottom plate of the container and configured to guide a forward and backward sliding path of the fixing pin; and a safety member (160) configured to maintain a forwarded state of the fixing pin such that the fixing pin inserted into the pinhole part does not come off.
Regarding claim 9, Kim discloses, the safety member is a rotating plate rotated to interfere with a handle or stopper of the fixing pin (Kim “The key protrusion 161 may be inserted into the key groove KH formed between the fixing pin 150 and the pin hole 150 so that the pin 150 is not rotated backward about the insertion hole 121”).
Regarding claim 10, Kim discloses, A container (100) , comprising: a bottom plate (110); a side wall (120) configured to rotate about a hinge axis to be expanded or folded from the bottom plate; movable posts (130) adjusted in height by expanding and contracting from the side wall; and a container locking apparatus (See annotated fig. below) installed on the side wall and the movable posts or on the bottom plate and the side wall, wherein the container locking apparatus comprises: at least one pinhole part (See annotated fig. below) formed at a portion of a container; and a fixing pin device (150) formed at another portion of the container to correspond to the pinhole part, and slidably formed such that at least a portion of the fixing pin device can be inserted into the pinhole part to lock a portion of the container, which guides the fixing pin device to be easily inserted when insertion of the fixing pin device begins, and makes the fixing pin device to firmly fix the pinhole part when insertion of the fixing pin device is completed.
Kim discloses the pinhole part to be regular rectangular pinhole but Kim does not explicitly disclose, wherein the pinhole part comprises a regular trapezoidal pinhole part with an overall positive trapezoidal shape or an inverse trapezoidal pinhole part with an overall negative trapezoidal shape.
Tian shows that trapezoid was an equivalent structure known in the art. In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness-type rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art. See MPEP 2144.06(II). Tian represents evidence that trapezoid were art-recognized equivalent structures for rectangular (Tian; “the shape of the lock hole 21 can be rectangular or oval or trapezoid and so on”). Therefore, because these two shapes of lock openings were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute trapezoidal shape for rectangular shape. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. See MPEP 2144.06(II)
PNG
media_image2.png
435
709
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
MA (CN 1252378) discloses a container with sidewalls that are foldable.
BETJEMANN (US 3459326) discloses moveable post with lockable sidewalls.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANJIDUL ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7670. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 -5:00.
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, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at 571-270-5531. 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.
/SANJIDUL ISLAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736