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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I – figs. 1-26f in the reply filed on March 9, 2026 is acknowledged. Applicant further notes the claims 1-20 are associated with the elected species.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore:
“a first plurality of panels, and wherein the first plurality of panels are removably positionable around the exterior of the body” as in claim 17
Must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
reference character 14 has been used to designate “re-configurable container”, “container”, “stacked container”, “an adjacent container”, “current container” and “containers” (see [0088-00161])
reference character 14a has been used to designate “the container”, “various configurations”, “manufacturing configuration”, “illustrated container”, “a container”, “first configuration”, “entire container” and “resulting container” (see [0088-00135])
reference character 14b has been used to designate “the container”, “various configurations”, “shipping configuration”, “the remaining container”, “illustrated container”, “a container” and “second configuration” (see [0088-00137])
reference character 30 has been used to designate “outer structural layer”, “exterior layer”, “outer layer”, “exterior structural layer” and “the second or outer structural layer” (see [0089-00138])
reference character 42 has been used to designate “top cap” and “the cap” (see [0089-00148])
reference character 26 has been used to designate “an inner structural layer”, “inner layer” “the first or inner structural layer”, “the final inner structural layer”, “a pre-existing inner layer”, “the internal structural layer” and “first layer” (see [0089-00166])
reference character 28 has been used to designate “body” and “a fully assembled body” (see [0093-00148])
reference character 60 has been used to designate “a plurality of apertures” and “the apertures” (see [0091-00135])
reference character 70 has been used to designate “top end”, “open top”, “the top” and “the top end”(see [0093-00160])
reference character 86 has been used to designate “inner surface”, “interior surface” and “interior surfaces” (see [0093-00121])
reference character 68 has been used to designate “one or more apertures or sample ports”, “ports” and “sample ports” (see [0096-00101])
reference character 90 has been used to designate “an assembly of structural wall panels”, “one or more panels”, “”a plurality of individual panels”, “the panels”, “a given panel”, “an adjacent panel”, “the assembled panels”, “the adjacent panel”, “four separate panels”, “combinations and sub-combinations of panels”, “multiple interconnected panels” “a panel”, “the panels” and “the exterior panels” (see [00105-00122])
reference character 160 has been used to designate “top travel cap”, “travel caps”, “end cap”, “a second end cap” and “top shipping cap” (see [00124-00148])
reference character 164 has been used to designate “bottom travel cap”, “travel caps”, “a first end cap”, “the first end cap”, “the second end cap” and “bottom shipping cap” (see [00124-00148])
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
reference characters 14, 14a and 14b has been used to designate “container” (see [0088-00161])
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: as noted in the drawing objections above. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 14-17 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 14-17, ln. 1, the preamble currently reads, “The container of claim…” which should read “The disposable container of claim…” to establish the proper antecedent basis and for consistency purposes with the remainder of the claim(s).
The forgoing analysis may not be exhaustive. Applicant should carefully proofread all claims and make all necessary corrections.
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 1-17, 19 and 20 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 1, ln. 4, the phrase, “may be” is unclear, thus making the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite. More specifically, it is unclear if the limitation following the term "may" are required or optional. For examination purposes the recitation following the term “may” are consider to be optional limitations.
In claim 8, ln. 4, the phrase, “may be” is unclear, thus making the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite. More specifically, it is unclear if the limitation following the term "may" are required or optional. For examination purposes the recitation following the term “may” are consider to be optional limitations.
In claim 12, ln. 2, the phrase, “...approximately...” which is a relative term and renders the claim indefinite. The term "approximately" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
In claim 17, ln. 1-3, the phrase, “…a first plurality of panels, and wherein the first plurality of panels are removably positionable around the exterior of the body…” renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
In claim 19, ln. 1, the phrase, “…the first segment…” lacks antecedent basis and renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because the applicant HAS NOT established “a first segment” per se in claim 17 (which claim 19 currently depends from). Rather, the applicant first introduced “a first segment” in claim 18 (which claim 19 DOES NOT depend from). Therefore, it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required. For the purpose of examination, examiner will treat claim 19 to depend from claim 18 NOT claim 17 in the art rejection below; emphasis added.
In claim 20, ln. 1-7, the phrases in each instance, “…the first segment…” and “the second segment” all lack antecedent basis and renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because the applicant HAS NOT established “a first segment” NOR “a second segment” per se in claim 17 (which claim 20 currently depends from). Rather, the applicant first introduced “a first segment” in claim 18 (which claim 20 DOES NOT depend from). Therefore, it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required. For the purpose of examination, examiner will treat claim 20 to depend from claim 18 NOT claim 17 in the art rejection below; emphasis added.
As for claims 2-7, 9-17, 19 and 20, due to their dependencies from claims 1 and 8 (respectively), they too have these deficiencies.
Examiner's note: The forgoing analysis may not be exhaustive. Applicant should carefully proofread all claims and make all necessary corrections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fisher (US 2698249 A; hereinafter Fisher).
Regarding claim 1, Fisher discloses a food container embodiment (as shown in Figs. 1-6; configured to store a foodstuff (i.e. a block of green cheese) therein), the food container comprising:
an inner structural layer (i.e. in the form of carton (19)) at least partially defining an internal volume in which the foodstuff may be positioned; and
an outer structural layer (i.e. in the form of a wire basket (B)) located outside the inner structural layer relative to the internal volume, wherein the outer structural layer is adjustable between an installed position (as shown in Fisher Fig. 5), in which the outer structural layer encompasses and provides structural support to the inner structural layer, and a detached position (as shown in Fisher Fig. 4) where the outer structural layer does not encompass and does not provide structural support to the inner structural layer, and wherein the outer structural layer is adjustable between the installed position and the detached position (Fisher Col. 2 ln. 8 – Col. 4 ln. 33).
Regarding claim 3, Fisher further discloses wherein the inner structural layer is formed of a paperboard material (Fisher Col. 2 ln. 22-34).
Regarding claim 4, Fisher further discloses wherein the outer structural layer is formed of a metallic material (i.e. galvanized steel rod; Fisher Col. 4 ln. 29-33).
Regarding claim 5, Fisher further discloses wherein the inner structural layer defines an exterior shape, and wherein the outer structural layer includes an inner shape that corresponds with the exterior shape when the outer structural layer is in the installed position (see Fisher Figs. 4-6).
Regarding claim 6, Fisher further discloses wherein the outer structural layer is in direct contact with the inner structural layer when the outer structural layer is in the installed position (see Fisher Figs. 4-6).
Regarding claim 7, Fisher further discloses wherein the inner structural layer includes two pieces of material (i.e. sections 21 and 23) coupled together to form the internal volume (Fisher Col. 2 ln. 22-34 and see Figs. 1-3).
Claims 8-11, 14-16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rozek (US 10954025 B2; hereinafter Rozek).
Regarding claim 8, Rozek discloses a disposable container embodiment (10; as shown in Figs. 1-4; configured to contain foodstuff therein), the disposable container comprising:
a body (14) including a plurality of panels (32, 34, 40 and 42), wherein the body defines an interior volume in which foodstuff may be placed, wherein the interior volume is open on a first end, and wherein at least two of the panels overlap (via the first and second duplex panel structures (40 and 42)); and
a first end cap (20) couplable to the body, wherein the first end cap is configured to enclose the first end (Rozek Col. 5 ln. 23 – Col. 11 ln. 24).
Regarding claim 9, Rozek further discloses a liner (i.e. in the form of inner bracket panels (48)) at least partially positioned within the internal volume, wherein the liner is positioned to form a barrier between the foodstuff and the plurality of panels (see Rozek Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 10, Rozek further discloses wherein the plurality of panels are formed from two U-shaped segments (see Rozek Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 11, Rozek further discloses wherein the body and the first end cap are both formed from a paperboard material (Rozek Col. 5 ln. 64 – Col. 6 ln. 3).
Regarding claim 14, Rozek further discloses wherein at least two panels of the plurality of panels are formed from a single piece of material (see Rozek Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 15, Rozek further discloses wherein the first end cap includes a base plate and one or more side plates extending from the perimeter of the base plate to define a first end cap volume, and wherein the first end of the body is positioned within the first end cap volume (see Rozek Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 16, Rozek further discloses wherein the interior volume is open on a second end opposite the first end, the container further comprising a second end cap (i.e. in the form of base (12)) couplable to the body and configured to enclose the second end (see Rozek Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 18, Rozek discloses a container embodiment (10; as shown in Figs. 1-4; configured to contain foodstuff therein), the container comprising:
a first segment (left panel (34)) including two or more panels (74, 78 and 80) formed from a single piece of material;
a second segment (right panel (34)) including two or more panels (74, 78 and 80) formed from a single piece of material, wherein the first segment and the second segment define an interior volume that is open on at least one end.
Regarding claim 19, Rozek further discloses wherein the first segment includes three panels separated by two joints (i.e. fold lines (76); see Rozek Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 20, Rozek further discloses wherein the first segment includes a first central panel (78), a first side panel (i.e. the front side lateral flap (74) on left panel (34); as shown in Rozek Figs. 1-2) adjacent the first central panel, and a second side panel (i.e. the rear side lateral flap (74) on left panel (34); as shown in Rozek Figs. 1-2) adjacent the first central panel opposite the first side panel,
wherein the second segment includes a second central panel (80), a third side panel (i.e. the front side lateral flap (74) on right panel (80); as shown in Rozek Figs. 1-2) adjacent the second central panel, and a fourth side panel (i.e. the rear side lateral flap (74) on right panel (80); as shown in Rozek Figs. 1-2) adjacent the second central panel opposite the third side panel, and
wherein the first segment is coupled to the second segment (via the first and second duplex panel structures (40 and 42)) such that the first side panel overlaps the third side panel and where the second side panel overlaps the fourth side panel.
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 of this title, 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 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher (US 2698249 A; hereinafter Fisher) in view of Lutz (US 3760970 A; hereinafter Lutz).
Regarding claim 2, Fisher as above teaches all the structural limitations as set forth in claim 1, except for wherein the outer structural layer is adjustable between the installed position and the detached position without having to remove the foodstuff from the internal volume.
Lutz is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, which is an adjustable or knockdown container. Lutz teaches a knockdown container (10; which examiner equates to the claimed outer structural layer) that is adjustable between an installed position (as shown in Figs. 1-2) and a detached position (as shown in Figs. 3-4); and wherein the outer structural layer is adjustable between the installed position and the detached position without having to remove the foodstuff from the internal volume (Lutz Col. 3 ln. 25 – Col. 7 ln. 11 and Figs. 1-10).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the outer structural layer (of Fisher) with a similar knockdown container (as taught by Lutz) to allow the user to remove the outer structural layer independently without contacting the inner structural layer.
An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. See MPEP §2143(I)(B) or §2144.06(II)
Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rozek (US 10954025 B2; hereinafter Rozek).
Regarding claim 12, Rozek teaches all the structural limitations as set forth in claim 8, except for wherein the paperboard material is approximately ¼” thick.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the paperboard material (of Rozek) approximately ¼” thick to make the overall disposable container more durable.
Since, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than a prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(A)
In addition, it is noted that nowhere in the original disclosure, the applicant POINTS OUT the criticality for the claimed dimension(s); emphasis added.
Claim 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rozek (US 10954025 B2; hereinafter Rozek) in view of Capper (US 3908864 A; hereinafter Capper).
Regarding claim 13, Rozek teaches all the structural limitations as set forth in claim 8, except for wherein at least one panel defines a sample port open to the internal volume.
Capper is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and Rozek, which is a disposable container. Capper teaches a disposable container (i.e. in the form of a protective cover made from panels (23)) configured to contain foodstuff therein (i.e. milk), the disposable container comprising: a body including a plurality of panels (23), wherein the body defines an interior volume in which foodstuff may be placed, wherein the interior volume is open on a first end, and wherein at least two of the panels overlap; and
wherein at least one panel defines a sample port (i.e. in the form of an elongated sight opening or slot (30) or rectangular notches (28); as shown in Figs. 1-3 and 5-6) open to the internal volume (Capper Col. 2 ln. 32 – Col. 5 ln. 31 and Figs. 1-9).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the at least one panel of the disposable container (of Rozek) with a similar sample port (as taught by Capper) to allow the user a view of the content stored within the internal volume.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited documents are listed on the attached PTO-892 form.
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or prior art(s) disclosed by the Examiner (in the attached PTO-892 form).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIJESH V. PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1878. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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. Avilés can be reached on 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 ttps://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.
/B. V. P./
Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/CHUN HOI CHEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights