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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/13/25 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 5 merely recites limitations already included in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 5-6, 8, 12-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cullen (US 8,985,432) in view of Ballou (US 8,794,492) further in view of Sullivan (US2,632,311) and Glenn (US 11,801,995).
Regarding claims 1,5, 8 and 19, Cullen (figs. 2 and 4) discloses bin system (capable of being used as a freezer bin system)comprising:
a collapsible bin 10 comprising: two foldable side walls 40, each having a bin fold feature 44 and two end walls 42;
wherein only two of said four walls have a bin fold feature 44 to form said two foldable side walls;
a base fabric member 26 extending along a base of the collapsible bin and coupled to each of the four walls (col. 2, lines 42-46);
a base support insert 30 configured for insertion into the collapsible bin to retain the four walls in an open configuration;
wherein each of the four walls 40, 42 and the base support insert 30 comprise a wall panel comprising: a structural component that is a plastic rigid member that is self-standing and retains a shape, wherein the structural component comprises two sections of structural component 92, 94 and an inner structural component 90 between said two sections of structural component 92, 94; wherein a first section of said two sections of structural component 92, 94 extends as a laver proximal to an interior of the wall panel and a second section of said two sections of structural component 92, 94 extends as a layer proximal to an exterior of the wall panel and wherein the inner structural component 90 are configured between the first section and second section of the structural component 92, 94; and
a strap 78 attached to each of the two foldable side walls wherein each strap has a first attached end attached on a first side of the bin fold feature and a second attached end attached to a second side, opposite said first side of the bin fold feature, and
wherein the bin fold feature is centrally configured on each of the foldable side walls between the two end walls; and
wherein the base support insert 30 has a base fold feature 50 to enable the base support insert to fold.
Cullen fails to disclose:
the inner structural component discussed above being structural voids;
two opposing walls comprise a bin divider attachment extending vertically along each of said two opposing walls, wherein the two opposing walls having the bin divider attachment are the two foldable side walls;
a wall divider panel configured to extend between the two opposing walls of said four walls, wherein the wall divider panel comprises: a first end attachment configured on a first end of the wall divider panel; and a second end attachment configured on a second end of the wall divider panel; wherein the first and second end attachments are configured to detachably attach to the bin divider attachments on said two opposing walls of the collapsible bin to produce a first compartment and second compartment within the collapsible bin; wherein the first end attachment and the second end attachment is a hook-and loop fastener; a structural component extending from the first end to the second end of the wall divider panel; and an exterior fabric extending around the structural component; a flap on said first end and a flap on said second end, and wherein the first end attachment is configured on said flap on said first end and the second end attachment is configured on said flap of the second end of the wall divider panel, and wherein the flap is configured to fold with respect to the wall divider panel;
wherein the two opposing walls having the bin divider attachments are the foldable side walls;
wherein each of the bin divider attachments extend along the bin fold feature of the respective foldable side wall;
wherein the first end attachment and the second end attachment is a hook-and loop fastener; and wherein the bin divider attachment is a hook-and-loop fastener.
wherein the bin (each of the wall panels) is waterproof, wherein no liquid water, passes through the wall panel for 10 hours with a 25cm water column of pressure applied thereto.
However, Ballou teaches collapsible container having:
two opposing foldable walls 37, 39 comprising a bin divider attachment 166 extending vertically along a fold line of each of said two opposing foldable walls;
a wall divider panel 16 configured to extend between the two opposing walls of said four walls, wherein the wall divider panel 16 consisting: a first end attachment 16F configured on a first end of the wall divider panel 16; and a second end attachment 16Fconfigured on a second end of the wall divider panel 16; wherein the first end attachment and the second end attachment is a hook-and loop fastener; a structural component extending from the first end to the second end of the wall divider panel; and an exterior fabric extending around the structural component; a flap on said first end and a flap on said second end, and wherein the first end attachment is configured on said flap on said first end and the second end attachment is configured on said flap of the second end of the wall divider panel, and wherein the flap is configured to fold with respect to the wall divider panel;
wherein the first and second end attachments are configured to detachably attach to the bin divider attachments on said two opposing walls of the collapsible bin to produce a first compartment and second compartment within the collapsible bin (fig.5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have provided the device of Cullen, divider attachments and a divider, as taught by Ballou, to provide a multi compartment bin that can store different items separately.
Further, Sullivan teaches container having a fabric layer consisting of waterproof canvas (col. 6, lines 4-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made the fabric material of the modified Cullen, a fabric layer consisting of waterproof canvas, in order to use the container of the modified Cullen for delivery of frozen foods, as taught by Sullivan.
Further, Glenn teaches a structural component or panel 44 being made of fluted polypropylene (fig. 7 and col. 2, lines 56-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made the structural component 90 of the modified Cullen, of fluted polypropylene, as taught by Glenn, to make the freezer bin rigid and light weight.
Regarding claim 6, Cullen further discloses the base support insert 30 extending centrally across the base fabric member 26 (fig. 4).
Regarding claims 12-13, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 14, the modified Cullen further discloses a compartment divider panel comprising a first end attachment and a second end attachment, and wherein the wall divider panel comprises a compartment attachment configured to detachably attach with the first end attachment of the compartment divider panel, and wherein one of said four walls other than said two opposing walls with the bin divider attachments comprises a bin compartment attachment configured to detachably attach with the second end attachment of the compartment divider panel to produce a segmented compartment within the first compartment of the collapsible bin (fig. 5 of Ballou).
Also, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 15, the modified Cullen further discloses the wall divider panel comprises a plurality of compartment attachments configured to detachably attach with the first end attachment of one of said plurality of compartment divider panels, and wherein at least one of said four walls other than said two opposing walls with the bin divider attachments comprises a bin compartment attachment configured to detachably attach with the second end attachment of the compartment divider panel to produce a segmented compartment (fig. 5 of Ballou).
Also, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claims 16-17, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the partition of Ballou that extends across the bin between the two foldable sides is a front lid coupled to a partition panel. Contrary to applicant’s argument, Ballou clearly calls panel 16 (that also includes a top portion) a partition wall 16 (col. 3, lines 66-67).
Regarding applicant’s arguments about the strap being attached to the foldable side walls, it is noted that the straps 78 of Cullen are also attached to the foldable side walls. Regarding the length of the straps, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the straps length) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Also, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Applicant’s allegations of copying by others are not persuasive since such allegations do not overcome the prior art rejections.
Applicant’s assertion of commercial success has been considered but does not overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Conclusion
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