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
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 -3 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilk (US 5,016,772) in view of Parnall (US 7,353,962).
Regarding claim 1, Wilk (figs. 7-9) discloses a storage box 70, comprising a box body having a containing space that is formed by joining four side retractable assemblies and at least one bottom retractable assembly 72a, 74a, 76a, 78a, wherein each side retractable assembly comprises a first side retractable plate assembly formed by two movable panels 72c and 78b, 78c and 76c, 74c and 76, 74b and 72b slidably sleeved with each other;
a side edge of the bottom retractable assembly being attached with a lower portion of one side retractable assembly.
Wilk fails to disclose the storage box 70 being a collapsable storage box having:
two opposite side retractable assemblies of the four side retractable assemblies being combined to form a first fold-over unit, and the other two opposite side retractable assemblies are combined to form a second fold-over unit;
lower portions of the side retractable assemblies within the first fold-over unit being hinged with the bottom retractable assembly;
wherein the second fold-over unit further comprises two vertical folding avoidance plates, each vertical folding avoidance plate being disposed below a corresponding side retractable assembly of the second fold-over unit, each vertical folding avoidance plate having a lower portion fixedly connected to the bottom retractable assembly and an upper portion hinged to the lower portion of the corresponding side retractable assembly of the second fold-over unit, such that the side retractable assemblies of the second fold-over unit are vertically offset from the bottom retractable assembly by the vertical folding avoidance plates, thereby providing clearance to accommodate a thickness of the side retractable assemblies of the first fold-over unit after the first fold-over unit is folded onto the bottom retractable assembly, and enabling the side retractable assemblies of the second fold-over unit to be subsequently folded over the side retractable assemblies of the first fold-over unit.
However, Parnall teaches a container having two opposing side walls hinged to the bottom and two other opposing side walls hinged to opposing folding avoidance plates (i.e., vertical plates provided on opposite sides of the bottom 115) (figs. 3a-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have modified the box of Wilk to include two opposing side walls be hinged to the bottom and the two other opposing side wall hinged to opposing folding avoidance plates, as taught by Parnall, to increase the box holding capacity and make the box collapsible to facilitate transport of the container when not in use.
Regarding claim 2, Parnall further teaches vertically slidable extensions 140, 150 being provided on the side walls (fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to modify the side walls of Wilk to include vertically slidable extensions as further taught by Parnall in order to provide additional adjustability of the container volume.
Regarding claims 3 and 25, Wilk further teaches each bottom retractable assembly is formed by two first bottom retractable plate assemblies 72a, 78a sleeved with each other; and
each of the first bottom retractable plate assemblies is formed by two movable panels slidably sleeved with each other (fig. 9).
Claims 8 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilk (US 5,016,772) in view of Parnall (US 7,353,962) further in view of Livingston-Peters (US 9,205,629).
Regarding claims 8 and 30, the modified Wilk further discloses a hinge assembly is further disposed at any position between adjacent two side retractable assemblies, between the lower portion of the side retractable assembly and the bottom retractable assembly, and between the upper portion of the vertical folding avoidance plate and the lower portion of the side retractable assembly on the corresponding side;
the hinge assembly comprises a first outer rotating plate, a second outer rotating plate, a first inner rotating plate, and a second inner rotating plate;
the first inner rotating plate is hinged with the second inner rotating plate;
the first inner rotating plate is correspondingly disposed on an inner side of the first outer rotating plate;
a first slide rail is disposed on an inner face of the first outer rotating plate, and a first slider matched with the first slide rail is disposed on an outer face of the first inner rotating plate; an extension direction of the first slide rail is perpendicular to a rotation direction of the first inner rotating plate;
the second inner rotating plate is correspondingly disposed on an inner side of the second outer rotating plate;
a second slide rail is disposed on one side and between the second inner rotating plate and the second outer rotating plate,
a second slide rail is disposed on an inner face of the second outer rotating plate, and a second slider matched with the second slide rail is disposed on an outer face of the second inner rotating plate; and an extension direction of the second slide rail is perpendicular to a rotation direction of the second inner rotating plate (figs. 4 and 9 of Wilk and fig. 4 of Parnell).
The modified Wilk fails to disclose the hinge connecting the first outer rotating plate and the second outer rotating plate respectively, being two open ends of an arc-shaped elastic connector integrally connected to the first outer rotating plate and the second outer rotating plate, respectively.
However, Livingston-Peters teaches a hinge made by an arc-shaped elastic connector 102 as claimed (figs. 1-1C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made the hinge connecting the first outer rotating plate and the second outer rotating plate, arc-shaped, as taught in Livingston-Peters, for enabling the hinge to be integrally formed with the container, reducing part count and simplifying manufacturing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/9/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that there is no “avoidance plate” beneath the second fold-over unit walls of Parnall. However, marked-up fig. 4 below clearly shows “avoidance plates”.
PNG
media_image1.png
738
675
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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