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 .
Priority date of 01/19/2024 based on 63/622937 is acknowledged. Note that the elected species of fig. 8 has priority dated 07/19/2024 based on 63/673255.
Claims 3-4, and 7 are withdrawn from further consideration. Applicant made the election of Group 2, directed to the embodiment in figure 8, without traverse, in the response dated 04/09/2026 is acknowledged.
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 following claimed features must be shown, without entering any new matter: for the elected embodiment: rotation of the articulation mechanism of 180 degrees in first and second orientation, the gap in claim 12, the first position in which a portion of the coupler is positioned within the gap and the second container from being separated along the stacking direction, and in the second position, the coupler is not positioned within the gap, the an articulation mechanism rotatable 180 degrees about an articulation axis, wherein rotation of the articulation mechanism causes movement of the coupler between the first orientation and the second orientation in claim 2, the coupler engage and overlap the tab in claim 15, the coupler translates in the direction transverse to the stacking direction as the first container is brought closer to the second container along the stacking direction, and wherein the coupler /plate 70/is urged by a biasing force to the first position once the coupler passes beyond the tab along with respect to the stacking direction in claim 16, the coupler /70/ is biased toward a first side in the first position, and in the second orientation, the coupler is biased toward a second side in the first position in claim 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, and 9-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “at least one biasing member, the biasing member configured to exert a biasing force on the planar body in a first direction when the reversible lock plate is in a first orientation and in a second direction when the reversible lock plate is in a second orientation, wherein actuation of the articulation mechanism causes the reversible lock plate to transition between the first orientation and the second orientation is confusing. It is unclear what comprises the second orientation in the elected embodiment of fig. 8.
PNG
media_image1.png
292
655
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In fig. 9, shows on lock position where portion 230 is locked, via the biased protrusion on portion 230 (right above 232 in fig. 10). It seems impossible for the portion to be in a second lock orientation since there is nothing would stop the protrusion from locking to any other parts. It seems that claim 1 is readable only on the non-elected embodiment. Similar with claim 12 reciting the two positions. See drawing objection above.
In claim 12, the limitation “the coupler is positioned within the gap thereby preventing the first container and the second container from being separated along the stacking direction” is confusing. it is unclear how coupler being positioned within the gap preventing the first container and the second container from being separated along the stacking direction. Where is the gap. It seems that portion 46 of the of the base being positioned in the gap to prevent the other container from being removed, and the coupler is not positioned within the gap at all.
Regarding claim 13, the recitation “an articulation mechanism (104) rotatable 180 degrees about an articulation axis, wherein rotation of the articulation mechanism causes movement of the coupler between the first orientation and the second orientation” is confusing. as set forth above, the only lock position where portion 230 is locked, via the biased protrusion on portion 230 (right above 232 in fig. 10). It seems impossible for the portion to be in a second lock orientation since there is nothing would stop the protrusion from locking to any other parts. See drawing objection above.
Regarding claim 15, the recitation “a tab terminates a portion of the gap such that a portion of the gap is closed along the stacking direction, and wherein the coupler is configured to engage and overlap the tab with respect to the stacking direction while in the first position” is confusing. The speciation identifies the tab as portion 50 (fig. 11), the coupler (plate 170) does not overlap the tabs 50.
Regarding claim 16, the recitation “the coupler is urged by a biasing force to the first position once the coupler passes beyond the tab along with respect to the stacking direction” is confusing. the tab, identify as, portion 50, are not overlapped by the coupler 170, and the coupler 170 seems does not “passes beyond the tab” as claimed.
Regarding claim 17, the recitation “the coupler is biased toward a first side in the first position, and in the second orientation, the coupler is biased toward a second side in the first position” is confusing. the drawings of the elected embodiment does not show how the coupler being locked in any orientation. Fig. 10 shows the biasing protrusion (above 232), and it is unclear how this protrusion is being locked in any orientation at all.
To overcome this rejection, applicant is required to provide drawings identify all claimed elements including the first and second positions, and the gap in which the coupler of the two containers are in lock and unlock positions in the drawings.
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.
Claims 1-2,5-6 and 8-18 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.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear what comprises the first and second positions for the elected embodiment, there seems to be no structure to lock the coupler in the elected
It is unclear what comprises the gap in claims 12-18. The specification defines 44 as a gap, but 44 is not the claimed gap being recited as being formed by the projection being spaced apart from a surface.
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.
(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 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li (20250066075).
PNG
media_image2.png
675
793
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
489
759
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Li teaches for selectively securing a first container relative to a second container in a stacked configuration along a stacking direction, the interface comprising: a projection (at 24) positioned on one of the first container and the second container, the projection being spaced apart from a surface to form a gap (at 241), the gap being open in a direction transverse to the stacking direction; and a coupler (1222) moveably mounted to the other of the first container and the second container, the coupler movable between a first orientation (upper portion fig. 16) and a second orientation (lower portion fig. 16) and translatable in the direction transverse to the stacking direction between a first position and a second position, in the first position, a portion of the coupler is positioned within the gap thereby preventing the first container and the second container from being separated along the stacking direction, and in the second position, the coupler is not positioned within the gap.
Regarding claim 13 note the articulation mechanism (122) rotatable 180 degrees as claimed.
Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barton (12090625).
PNG
media_image4.png
1104
808
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
1050
809
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Barton teaches a mating interface for selectively securing a first container relative to a second container in a stacked configuration along a stacking direction, the interface comprising:
a projection positioned on one of the first container and the second container, the projection (84) being spaced apart from a surface to form a gap (82/84 fig. 2), the gap being open in a direction transverse to the stacking direction; and a coupler (fig. 1) moveably mounted to the other of the first container and the second container, the coupler movable between a first orientation (fig. 4) and a second orientation (fig. 3) and translatable in the direction transverse to the stacking direction between a first position and a second position, in the first position, a portion of the coupler is positioned within the gap (note 30 extending outward) thereby preventing the first container and the second container from being separated along the stacking direction, and in the second position, the coupler is not positioned within the gap (note 30 is retracted in fig. 3).
Regarding claim 13, note an articulation mechanism (14) rotatable 180 degrees about an articulation axis, wherein rotation of the articulation mechanism causes movement of the coupler between the first orientation and the second orientation.
Regarding claim 14 the coupler is biased toward the first position by at least one biasing member (66).
Regarding claim 15, note that protrusions 54 comprises the tab and note a portion of the gap is closed along the stacking direction (the upstanding wall portion between the recess 82 and 84), and wherein the coupler is configured to engage and overlap the tab (84) with respect to the stacking direction while in the first position as set forth supra.
Regarding claim 16, note the coupler (50) translates in the direction transverse to the stacking direction as the first container is brought closer to the second container along the stacking direction, and wherein the coupler (50) is urged by a biasing force (at 46/66) to the first position once the coupler passes beyond the tab along with respect to the stacking direction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI M MAI whose telephone number is (571)272-4541. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm (Mon-Friday).
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at (571) 270-5055. 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.
TRI M. MAI
Examiner
Art Unit 3733
/TRI M MAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights