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 .
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, the inner and outer layers of the base (claim 5 and 7) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 8, 11, 14, 15, 18, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 6, change “pane” to --panel--;
Claim 3, line 2, change “pane” to --panel--;
Claim 8, line 4, change first recitation of “a” to --the--;
Claim 11, line 6, change “pane” to --panel--;
Claim 14, line 2, change “pane” to --panel--;
Claim 15, line 4, change first recitation of “a” to --the--;
Claim 18, line 6, change “pane” to --panel--;
Claim 18, line 14, change first recitation of “a” to --the--; and
Claim 19, line 4, change “pane” to --panel--.
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 4, and 11-17 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.
Claim 4 is rejected as being incomplete for failing to recite sufficient structural cooperation between the base and the lid flap to enable the claimed function of “operates as a locking mechanism”.
The following change would receive favorable consideration:
Claim 4. (proposed) The rental casket insert of claim 1, wherein the base further includes a first aperture disposed on the interior surface of the base, and wherein the lid includes a flap that is coupled to a lower portion of the lid and extends upward, such that when the lid is inserted in the base, the flap is received by the first aperture and operates as a locking mechanism to removably secure the lid to the base.
See claim 11, lines 10-13, for the same indefinite language as discussed above with respect to claim 4.
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as they depend from rejected claim 11.
It is unclear if the “plurality of flaps” recited in claims 16 and 17, line 2, is referencing and/or includes the “flap” previously recited in claim 11, line 11.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cox et al. (US#9427369).
Regarding claim 1, Cox discloses a casket comprising: a base 12 (col. 3, lines 32-38) for receiving a deceased onto an interior surface that includes a lower panel 16, a first base end panel 19, a second base end panel 19, a first base side panel 18, and a second base side panel 18, wherein the base is configured is defined by a base length, a base width, and a base height (col. 3, lines 32-38); and a lid 22 for engaging with the interior surface of the base (Fig. 1) that includes an upper panel 24, a first lid end panel 30, a second lid end panel 32, a first lid side panel 26 and a second lid side panel 28, wherein the lid is defined by a lid length, a lid width, and a lid height, wherein the lid height is greater than the base height (Fig. 1), and wherein the lid includes at least one “detachable” (capable of being detached) portion 34, wherein the at least one detachable portion 34 is configured as a perforated (via slit scored fold lines 110, 118, and 120 defining perforations, see Fig. 4) section “for removal” (portion 34 capable of being removed from the lid 22 at slit score fold line 110) to “allow” (not prevent) at least partial coupling of the lid with the base when the deceased is disposed in the base against the interior surface.
Regarding claim 1, the casket of Cox includes all of the structure of claim 1 and is thus being viewed and labeled as a “rental casket insert” as it meets the applicant’s claim definition thereof. Where there is physical identity between the subject matter of the claims and the prior art, the label given to the claimed subject matter does not distinguish the invention over the prior art. In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1403, 181 USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA 1974); In re Lemin, 326 F.2d 437, 140 USPQ 273 (CCPA 1964). Further, a rental casket is not being claimed and the casket of Cox is capable of being inserted into a rental casket.
Regarding claim 2, wherein the at least one detachable portion is configured as a plurality of concentric perforated sections 44, 42, and 46, see Fig. 4.
Regarding claim 3, wherein the at least one detachable portion is disposed along the first lid side panel 26.
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 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox et al. (US#9427369) in view of Garvin (US#12171697).
Regarding claim 4, Cox fails to disclose discloses wherein the base further includes a first aperture disposed on the interior surface of the base, and wherein the lid includes a flap that is coupled to a lower portion of the lid and extends upward, such that when the lid is inserted in the base, the flap operates as a locking mechanism to removably secure the lid to the base. However, as evidenced by Garvin, such a locking mechanism is known in the analogous art, see casket base 12 which includes a first aperture 28 (handle opening) disposed on the interior surface of the base (Fig. 2), and wherein casket lid 14 includes a flap 11 that is coupled to a lower portion 60 of the lid (Fig. 5) and extends upward (has a height dimension), such that when the lid is inserted in the base, the flap operates as a locking mechanism to removably secure the lid to the base (col. 4, lines 10-20). Therefore, as evidenced by Garvin, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cox by including a first aperture disposed on the interior surface of the base, and wherein the lid includes a flap that is coupled to a lower portion of the lid and extends upward, such that when the lid is inserted in the base, the flap operates as a locking mechanism to removably secure the lid to the base. The rational for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is the proposed combination is based upon combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The inclusion of the above locking mechanism would enhance the security of the deceased by preventing unintentional removal of the lid from the casket.
Regarding claim 11, Cox discloses a casket comprising: a base 12 (col. 3, lines 32-38) for receiving a deceased onto an interior surface that includes a lower panel 16, a first base end panel 19, a second base end panel 19, a first base side panel 18, and a second base side panel 18, wherein the base is configured is defined by a base length, a base width, and a base height (col. 3, lines 32-38); and a lid 22 for engaging with the interior surface of the base (Fig. 1) that includes an upper panel 24, a first lid end panel 30, a second lid end panel 32, a first lid side panel 26 and a second lid side panel 28, wherein the lid is defined by a lid length, a lid width, and a lid height, and wherein the lid includes at least one “detachable” (capable of being detached) portion 34, wherein the at least one detachable portion 34 is configured as a perforated (via slit scored fold lines 110, 118, and 120 defining perforations, see Fig. 4) section “for removal” (portion 34 capable of being removed from the lid 22 at slit score fold line 110) to “allow” (not prevent) at least partial coupling of the lid with the base when the deceased is disposed in the base against the interior surface.
Regarding claim 11, the casket of Cox includes all of the structure of claim 1 and is thus being viewed and labeled as a “rental casket insert” as it meets the applicant’s claim definition thereof. Where there is physical identity between the subject matter of the claims and the prior art, the label given to the claimed subject matter does not distinguish the invention over the prior art. In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1403, 181 USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA 1974); In re Lemin, 326 F.2d 437, 140 USPQ 273 (CCPA 1964). Further, a rental casket is not being claimed and the casket of Cox is capable of being inserted into a rental casket.
Regarding claim 11, Cox fails to disclose discloses wherein the base further includes a first aperture disposed on the interior surface of the base, and wherein the lid includes a flap that is coupled to a lower portion of the lid and extends upward, such that when the lid is inserted in the base, the flap operates as a locking mechanism to removably secure the lid to the base. However, as evidenced by Garvin, such a locking mechanism is known in the analogous art, see casket base 12 which includes a first aperture 28 (handle opening) disposed on the interior surface of the base (Fig. 2), and wherein casket lid 14 includes a flap 11 that is coupled to a lower portion 60 of the lid (Fig. 5) and extends upward (has a height dimension), such that when the lid is inserted in the base, the flap operates as a locking mechanism to removably secure the lid to the base (col. 4, lines 10-20). Therefore, as evidenced by Garvin, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cox by including a first aperture disposed on the interior surface of the base, and wherein the lid includes a flap that is coupled to a lower portion of the lid and extends upward, such that when the lid is inserted in the base, the flap operates as a locking mechanism to removably secure the lid to the base. The rational for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is the proposed combination is based upon combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The inclusion of the above locking mechanism would enhance the security of the deceased by preventing unintentional removal of the lid from the casket.
Regarding claim 12, Cox discloses wherein the lid height is greater than the base height (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Cox discloses wherein the at least one detachable portion is configured as a plurality of concentric perforated sections 44, 42, and 46, see Fig. 4.
Regarding claim 14, Cox discloses wherein the at least one detachable portion is disposed along the first lid side panel 26.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox et al. (US#9427369) in view of Davis et al. (US#2011/0000059).
Regarding claim 5, although Cox discloses wherein the base further includes a handling aperture 13 disposed on the base 12 for aiding in a human moving the casket (Fig. 1), Cox fails to disclose wherein the casket base includes an inner layer that defines the interior surface and an outer layer. However, as evidenced by Davis, such a base configuration is known in the analogous art, see Figs. 6-8 and casket base 112 including an inner layer 132 that defines the interior surface and an outer layer 200, wherein the base further includes a handling aperture 128 disposed on the outer layer of the base for aiding in a human moving the casket 100. Therefore, as evidenced by Davis, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill it the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cox such that the base includes an inner layer that defines the interior surface and an outer layer, wherein the base further includes a handling aperture disposed on the outer layer of the base for aiding in a human moving the casket. The rational for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is the proposed combination is based upon combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The inclusion of the base including an inner layer that defines the interior surface and an outer layer, wherein the base further includes a handling aperture disposed on the outer layer of the base for aiding in a human moving the casket, would deter fluid leakage from the casket and facilitate manual movement thereof.
Regarding claim 6, Cox discloses the handling aperture is disposed along at least one of base side panels.
Regarding claim 7, Davis teaches the inner layer is configured as a fluid impermeable layer ([0031], leak resistant liner).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 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.
Claims 15-17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 18-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 8, Cox discloses wherein the lid further includes a first plurality of lid extension panels 34 and 40 coupled to the first lid side panel 26, but not permanently attached to the first lid end panel 30 and a second plurality of lid extension panels 36 and 38 coupled to the second lid side 28 panel but not permanently attached to a second lid end panel 32, and wherein the first lid end panel includes (defines) a first center end panel 30 and the second lid end panel includes (defines) a second center end panel 32. However, for Cox to meet the current limitations of claim 1, one of these four extension panels 34, 40, 36, 38 is required to correspond to the claimed “detachable portion”. Consequently, only one of the first lid side panel or the second lid side panel can include a plurality of lid extension panels.
Claims 15 and 18 both include the allowable subject matter discussed above with respect to claim 8.
It is noted Davis et al. (US#2011/0000059) discloses in Fig. 8C a casket wherein the lid 114 has a “removed” section along the lower edge of its side wall for insertion into the base 112, see [0030].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM L MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-7068. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 6:00 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, Jason San can be reached at (571) 272-6531. 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.
WILLIAM L. MILLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3677
/WILLIAM L MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677