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 § 112
Claims 1-12 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “a container, in particular a bag or a case” (line 1). The phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 1, “and which are connected to each to one another” (line 3), it is unclear whether this is referencing the frame elements or the receiving objects. For purposes of examination, the examiner is interpreting this limitation to be in reference to the frame elements.
Regarding claim 2, it is unclear what “the latter” (line 3) is in reference to. For purposes of examination, the examiner is interpreting “the latter” to be referencing the pivot axis.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, it is unclear what “the pivot axis X” is. The examiner recommends “the pivot axis X” be written as “the pivot axis” or “the pivot axis (X)”.
Regarding claim 11, it is unclear what “the holding parts are movable radially to the pivot axis to the respective corresponding mating holding part” means. The examiner is interpreting this to mean “the holding parts are movable radially to the pivot axis and to the respective corresponding mating holding part”.
Claims 3-10 are allowed due to their dependencies.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” and are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1: delimited by means of at least one foldable connecting element
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7: connecting means
Claim 9: connected by means of at least one divider
Claims 13 and 19: the two connecting elements are connected by means of at least one divider
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1: at least two holding parts that are configured to releasably connect to the frame elements
Claim 1: the connecting element is configured to include one of the following features
Claim 11: two holding parts that are configured to releasably connect
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Regarding claim 1, US Patent 9848682 issued to Zadvinskis discloses A container (Fig 2 of Zadvinskis case 202 is a container), in particular a bag or a case, having at least two frame elements which circumferentially surround an internal receptacle space for receiving objects and which are connected to one another on one side so as to be pivotable open about a pivot axis from a closed state of the container to an opened state of the container (Fig 2 od Zadvinskis, frame elements 204/224; pivot about hinge 240), wherein a maximum opening angle of the frame elements is delimited by means of at least one foldable connecting element (Fig 1A-1B of Zadvinskis, connecting elements 250/252), wherein the connecting element for connecting to the frame elements has at least two connecting means and at least two holding parts, and the frame elements correspondingly have in each case on an internal wall (Fig 2 of Zadvinskis, ends of connecting elements 250/252 attached by fastenings at 254/256), on lateral portions extending radially to the pivot axis, at least one mating connecting means for [Not taught: releasably connecting] to the connecting means of the connecting element (Fig 2 of Zadvinskis, ends of connecting elements 250/252 attached by fastenings at 254/256 are mating connecting means), and at least one mating holding part for [Not taught: releasably] connecting to the holding parts of the connecting element, wherein, for connecting the connecting means to the respective mating connecting means, the connecting means are movable parallel to the pivot axis to the respective corresponding mating connecting means (Fig 2 of Zadvinskis), characterized in that,
wherein,
for connecting the holding part to the respective mating holding part, the holding parts are movable radially to the pivot axis to the respective corresponding mating holding part (Fig 2 of Zadvinskis).
Zadvinskis does not expressly disclose at least one mating connecting means for releasably connecting to the connecting means of the connecting element, and at least one mating holding part for releasably connecting to the holding parts of the connecting element,
Regarding claim 11, US Patent 9848682 issued to Zadvinskis discloses A connecting element that delimits a maximum opening angle of a container (Fig 2 of Zadvinskis case 202 is a container), that has at least two frame elements which circumferentially surround an internal receptacle space for receiving objects and which are connected to one another on one side so as to be pivotable open about a pivot axis X from a closed state of the container to an opened state of the container (Fig 2 od Zadvinskis, frame elements 204/224; pivot about hinge 240),
wherein the connecting element has at least two connecting means and at least two holding parts that are configured to [Not taught: releasably connect] to the frame elements, which have corresponding mating connecting means and mating holding parts (Fig 2 of Zadvinskis, ends of connecting elements 250/252 attached by fastenings at 254/256 are mating connecting means).
wherein, the connecting means are movable parallel to the pivot axis X to the respective corresponding mating connecting means, and the holding parts are movable radially to the pivot axis X to the respective corresponding mating holding (Fig 2 of Zadvinskis).
Zadvinskis does not expressly disclose wherein the connecting element has at least two connecting means and at least two holding parts that are configured to releasably connect to the frame elements.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not teach wherein the connecting element has at least two connecting means and at least two holding parts that are configured to releasably connect to the frame elements.
.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA KAVINI TAMIL whose telephone number is (571)272-6655. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at 571-270-5055 2142. 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.
/JESSICA KAVINI TAMIL/ Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/NATHAN J JENNESS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733 22 May 2026
Prosecution Insights