Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
2. 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 second pair of vehicle anchor fixtures, as recited in claims 1 and 15, 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
3. Claim 13 is objected to because the limitation “the second vehicle anchor fixture” lacks proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-7, 10, 12, 14, 15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mughal (US 2010/0025137 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mughal discloses a stackable container assembly (20 along with multiple 30, see Figure 9, and “many supplemental battery units” in [0035]) comprising: a first pair of vehicle anchor fixtures (26, see [0028], and 35 in 20) for connecting to a vehicle (see “adapted to be mounted on a vehicle” in [0025], though the vehicle is not currently being claimed in combination due to the functional language “for connecting”); a second pair of vehicle anchor fixtures (26 and 35 in lowermost 30) for connecting to the vehicle (indirectly via 20); a base container (the second 30 from the bottom in the stack, the housing of the battery being a container with the internal battery components) for selectively connecting to the first pair of vehicle anchor fixtures (those of 20) and the second pair of vehicle anchor fixtures (those of lowermost 30, where all 30’s are attachable to 20 or other 30’s); and an accessory container (the third 30 from the bottom in the stack) for selectively connecting to the base container (the second 30 from the bottom in the stack), the first pair of vehicle anchor fixtures (those of 20), and the second pair of vehicle anchor fixtures (those of lowermost 30), when connected to the vehicle: anchor fixtures of the first pair of vehicle anchor fixtures having a separation therebetween equal to a separation between anchor fixtures of second pair of vehicle anchor fixtures (see Figures), the base container (the second 30 from the bottom in the stack) being selectively connected to one of the first pair of vehicle anchor fixtures (those of 20) and the second pair of vehicle anchor fixtures (those of lowermost 30), and the accessory container being selectively connected to one of: the base container (the second 30 from the bottom in the stack), and an other one of the first pair of vehicle anchor fixtures (those of 20) and the second pair of vehicle anchor fixtures (those of lowermost 30).
Regarding claim 2, Mughal discloses the stackable container assembly of claim 1, wherein the base container comprises a container body having a top surface and a bottom surface (see Figures), the bottom surface being configured (by having 33/38 and 34) for selectively connecting to the first pair of vehicle anchor fixtures and the second pair of vehicle anchor fixtures.
Regarding claim 3, Mughal discloses the stackable container assembly of claim 2, wherein the bottom surface of the base container comprises: a tongue (33/38) connected to the container body and being selectively inserted into a first vehicle anchor fixture (26) of the one of the first pair of vehicle anchor fixtures and the second pair of vehicle anchor fixtures, the tongue being positioned on a first side of the container body (see Figures); and an anchor (34) connected to the container body and being selectively inserted into a second vehicle anchor fixture (35) of the one of the first pair of vehicle anchor fixtures and the second pair of vehicle anchor fixtures, the anchor being positioned on a second side of the container body, the second side of the container body being oppositely disposed to the first side of the container body (see Figures).
Regarding claim 4, Mughal discloses the stackable container assembly of claim 2, wherein the accessory container comprises an accessory body having an accessory bottom surface for selectively connecting (via 33/38 and 34) the accessory container to the top surface of the base container such that the accessory container is stacked on top of the base container.
Regarding claim 5, Mughal discloses the stackable container assembly of claim 2, further comprising a fixture assembly (one of 30 of the “many” not yet relied upon) attached to the top surface of the container body, the fixture assembly being configured for receiving the accessory container; and wherein the fixture assembly comprises: a fixture plate (30 being flat like a plate); and at least one anchor fixture (any of 26 or 35 or 33/38 or 34) connected to the fixture plate.
Regarding claim 6, Mughal discloses the stackable container assembly of claim 5, wherein the fixture assembly is removable from the base container (all of 30 are removable from one another).
Regarding claim 7, Mughal discloses the stackable container assembly of claim 5, wherein: the fixture plate (one of 30) includes a handle (36); and the bottom surface of the accessory body is configured (via 39) for receiving the handle attached to the fixture plate when the accessory container is connected to the base container.
Regarding claim 10, Mughal discloses the stackable container assembly of claim 3, wherein the anchor (34) comprises: an anchor base (see proximate upper dashed line below) connected to the bottom surface of the container body; and an anchor lock (see horizontal portion of 34 in Figures 6 and 7) extending from the anchor base, the anchor lock extending parallel to the bottom surface of the container body (see Figures 6 and 7).
PNG
media_image1.png
478
616
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Mughal discloses the stackable container assembly of claim 10, wherein the anchor further includes a stem (vertical portion of 34 in Figures 6 and 7, see between the dashed lines above) extending downward from the bottom surface, the at least one anchor lock being connected to and extending from the stem.
Regarding claim 14, Mughal discloses the stackable container assembly of claim 1, wherein each vehicle anchor fixture of the first pair of vehicle anchor fixtures and the second pair of vehicle anchor fixtures comprises a fixture body (30) configured to be connected to the vehicle, an anchor aperture (26) and an anchor chamber (35) being defined in the fixture body.
Regarding claim 15, Mughal discloses a vehicle (see “bicycle” in [0025]) comprising: a first pair of vehicle anchor fixtures (26, see [0028], and 35 in 20); a second pair of vehicle anchor fixtures (26 and 35 in lowermost 30), anchor fixtures of the first pair of vehicle anchor fixtures having a separation therebetween equal to a separation between anchor fixtures of second pair of vehicle anchor fixtures (see Figures); a base container (the second 30 from the bottom in the stack, the housing of the battery being a container with the internal battery components) selectively connected to one of the first pair of vehicle anchor fixtures and the second pair of vehicle anchor fixtures (all 30’s are attachable to 20 or other 30’s); and an accessory container (the third 30 from the bottom in the stack) selectively connected to one of: the base container, and an other one of the first pair of vehicle anchor fixtures and the second pair of vehicle anchor fixtures (see Figures).
Regarding claim 17, Mughal discloses the vehicle of claim 15, wherein the base container comprises a container body having a top surface and a bottom surface, the bottom surface being configured for selectively connecting (via 33/38 and 34) to the first pair of vehicle anchor fixtures and the second pair of vehicle anchor fixtures.
Regarding claim 18, Mughal discloses the vehicle of claim 15, wherein the bottom surface of the base container comprises: a tongue (33/38) connected to the container body and being selectively inserted into a first vehicle anchor fixture (26) of the one of the first pair of vehicle anchor fixtures and the second pair of vehicle anchor fixtures, the tongue being positioned on a first side of the container body (see Figures); and an anchor (34) connected to the container body and being selectively inserted into a second vehicle anchor fixture (35) of the one of the first pair of vehicle anchor fixtures and the second pair of vehicle anchor fixtures, the anchor being positioned on a second side of the container body, the second side of the container body being oppositely disposed to the first side of the container body (see Figures).
Regarding claim 19, Mughal discloses the vehicle of claim 15, wherein the accessory container comprises an accessory body (30) having an accessory bottom surface for selectively connecting (via 33/38 and 34) the accessory container to the top surface of the base container such that the accessory container is stacked on top of the base container.
7. Claims 1-4, 10, 12, 14, 15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sullivan (US 6,983,946 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Sullivan discloses a stackable container assembly (60/21/21’/21”) comprising: a first pair of vehicle anchor fixtures (67/68 or 67’/68’ in 60) for connecting to a vehicle (60 is a vehicle, though the vehicle is not currently being claimed in combination due to the functional language “for connecting”); a second pair of vehicle anchor fixtures (36/39 or 36’/39’ in 21) for connecting to the vehicle (21 is connected to 60); a base container (21’) for selectively connecting to the first pair of vehicle anchor fixtures and the second pair of vehicle anchor fixtures (21’ is connectable to either); and an accessory container (21”) for selectively connecting to the base container, the first pair of vehicle anchor fixtures, and the second pair of vehicle anchor fixtures (21” is connectable to any of these), when connected to the vehicle: anchor fixtures of the first pair of vehicle anchor fixtures having a separation therebetween equal to a separation between anchor fixtures of second pair of vehicle anchor fixtures (see Figures), the base container (21’) being selectively connected to one of the first pair of vehicle anchor fixtures and the second pair of vehicle anchor fixtures (21’ is connectable to either), and the accessory container being selectively connected to one of: the base container, and an other one of the first pair of vehicle anchor fixtures, and the second pair of vehicle anchor fixtures (21” is connectable to any of these).
Regarding claim 2, Sullivan discloses the stackable container assembly of claim 1, wherein the base container (21’) comprises a container body having a top surface and a bottom surface (see Figures), the bottom surface being configured (by having 35 and 37) for selectively connecting to the first pair of vehicle anchor fixtures and the second pair of vehicle anchor fixtures.
Regarding claim 3, Sullivan discloses the stackable container assembly of claim 2, wherein the bottom surface of the base container comprises: a tongue (37) connected to the container body and being selectively inserted into a first vehicle anchor fixture of the one of the first pair of vehicle anchor fixtures and the second pair of vehicle anchor fixtures (37 is insertable into either), the tongue being positioned on a first side of the container body (see Figures); and an anchor (35) connected to the container body and being selectively inserted into a second vehicle anchor fixture of the one of the first pair of vehicle anchor fixtures and the second pair of vehicle anchor fixtures (35 is insertable into either), the anchor being positioned on a second side of the container body, the second side of the container body being oppositely disposed to the first side of the container body (see Figures).
Regarding claim 4, Sullivan discloses the stackable container assembly of claim 2, wherein the accessory container (21”) comprises an accessory body having an accessory bottom surface for selectively connecting (via 35 and 37) the accessory container to the top surface of the base container such that the accessory container is stacked on top of the base container.
Regarding claim 10, Sullivan discloses the stackable container assembly of claim 3, wherein the anchor (35) comprises: an anchor base (area where vertical portion of 35 is attached to the bottom surface) connected to the bottom surface of the container body; and an anchor lock (horizontal portion of 35) extending from the anchor base, the anchor lock extending parallel to the bottom surface of the container body (see Figures).
Regarding claim 12, Sullivan discloses the stackable container assembly of claim 10, wherein the anchor further includes a stem (vertical portion of 35) extending downward from the bottom surface, the at least one anchor lock being connected to and extending from the stem.
Regarding claim 14, Sullivan discloses the stackable container assembly of claim 1, wherein each vehicle anchor fixture of the first pair of vehicle anchor fixtures and the second pair of vehicle anchor fixtures comprises a fixture body (portion of 60 or portion of 21) configured to be connected to the vehicle, an anchor aperture (67 and 36) and an anchor chamber (68 and 39) being defined in the fixture body.
Regarding claim 15, Sullivan discloses a vehicle (60/21) comprising: a first pair of vehicle anchor fixtures (67/68 or 67’/68’); a second pair of vehicle anchor fixtures (36/39 or 36’/39’ in 21), anchor fixtures of the first pair of vehicle anchor fixtures having a separation therebetween equal to a separation between anchor fixtures of second pair of vehicle anchor fixtures (see Figures); a base container (21’) selectively connected to one of the first pair of vehicle anchor fixtures and the second pair of vehicle anchor fixtures (21’ is attachable to either); and an accessory container (21”) selectively connected to one of: the base container, and an other one of the first pair of vehicle anchor fixtures and the second pair of vehicle anchor fixtures (21” is attachable to any of these).
Regarding claim 17, Sullivan discloses the vehicle of claim 15, wherein the base container (21’) comprises a container body having a top surface and a bottom surface, the bottom surface being configured for selectively connecting (via 35,37) to the first pair of vehicle anchor fixtures and the second pair of vehicle anchor fixtures (21’ is attachable to either).
Regarding claim 18, Sullivan discloses the vehicle of claim 15, wherein the bottom surface of the base container comprises: a tongue (37) connected to the container body and being selectively inserted into a first vehicle anchor fixture of the one of the first pair of vehicle anchor fixtures and the second pair of vehicle anchor fixtures (37 is insertable into either), the tongue being positioned on a first side of the container body (see Figures); and an anchor (35) connected to the container body and being selectively inserted into a second vehicle anchor fixture of the one of the first pair of vehicle anchor fixtures and the second pair of vehicle anchor fixtures (35 is insertable into either), the anchor being positioned on a second side of the container body, the second side of the container body being oppositely disposed to the first side of the container body (see Figures).
Regarding claim 19, Sullivan discloses the vehicle of claim 15, wherein the accessory container (21”) comprises an accessory body having an accessory bottom surface for selectively connecting (via 35,37) the accessory container to the top surface of the base container such that the accessory container is stacked on top of the base container.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan et al. (US 6,983,946 B2).
Regarding claim 5, Sullivan discloses the stackable container assembly of claim 2, but fails to further disclose a fixture assembly (one of 30 of the “many” not yet relied upon) attached to the top surface of the container body, the fixture assembly being configured for receiving the accessory container; and wherein the fixture assembly comprises: a fixture plate (30 being flat like a plate); and at least one anchor fixture (any of 26 or 35 or 33/38 or 34) connected to the fixture plate. Sullivan discloses multiple containers stacked but shows only three (see Figure 11). The top of this stack is clearly capable of receiving a fourth container (see Figure 11). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided a fourth stacked Sullivan container, the motivation being to allow the user to transport more items. This modification is also nothing more than a duplication of parts where 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. Within this stack of four Sullivan containers, 21’ stays the base container; 21” becomes a fixture assembly as claimed; and the fourth container becomes the accessory container. 21” is a fixture assembly attached to the top surface of the container body (21’), the fixture assembly being configured for receiving the accessory container (see Figure 11); and wherein the fixture assembly comprises: a fixture plate (any side of the container is a plate); and at least one anchor fixture (36 or 39) connected to the fixture plate.
Regarding claim 6, Sullivan discloses the stackable container assembly of claim 5, wherein the fixture assembly is removable from the base container (all of 21 are removable from one another).
10. Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan et al. (US 6,983,946 B2) in view of Olarte (US 9,926,104 B2).
Regarding claim 8, Sullivan as modified above would include the stackable container assembly of claim 5, but so far fails to include wherein: the base container further comprises a fluid filling neck adapted for filling an interior of the base container with fluid; the fluid filling neck extends from the container body of the base container; and the fluid filling neck is outside an exterior edge of the fixture plate.
Regarding claim 9, Sullivan as modified above fails to include the stackable container assembly of claim 8 and fails to include a cap adapted for selectively closing the fluid filling neck, the cap being removable when the accessory container is connected to the base container.
Olarte teaches that it was already known in the art for a series of stacked containers to each include a protruding neck (14) for filling the container with liquid and a cap (16) for selectively closing the neck. Considering these references in their entirety, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant's invention was filed to have provided one or more of the Sullivan stacked containers with a protruding neck and cap like that of Olarte, the motivation being to allow a user to easily add liquid to one of the stacked containers should the need ever arise.
11. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan et al. (US 6,983,946 B2) in view of Roberts (US 2010/0147916 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Sullivan discloses the vehicle of claim 15, but fails to disclose wherein the vehicle is a snowmobile comprising: a frame including a tunnel, the first and second vehicle anchor fixtures being connected to a top side of the tunnel; a motor connected to the frame; a drive track disposed at least in part under the tunnel, the drive track being operatively connected to and driven by the motor; at least one ski operatively connected to the frame; and a straddle seat disposed above the tunnel; and wherein: the accessory container extends at least partially above the straddle seat when the accessory container is connected to the base container; and a top surface of the straddle seat extends above the top surface of the container body of the base container. Roberts teaches that it was already known in the art to removably mount a container (10) to the back of a snowmobile as claimed. Considering these references in their entirety, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant's invention was filed to have mounted the stacked containers of Sullivan to the back of a snowmobile in the manner taught by Roberts, the motivation being to allow the snowmobile operator to transport various quantities of gear as needed. Regarding the specific heights of the containers with respect to the vehicle components, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have varied the heights of the containers, in this case to have the accessory container extend at least partially above the straddle seat when the accessory container is connected to the base container; and a top surface of the straddle seat extend above the top surface of the container body of the base container, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. 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).
Double Patenting
12. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
13. A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
14. The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
15. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
16. Claims 1-9 and 14-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 10,391,949.
Regarding claims 1-9 and 14-19, the patented claims recite the presently claimed structure except for a second pair of vehicle anchor fixtures. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the assembly of the patented claims with a second pair of anchor fixtures, a duplicate of the first pair, the motivation being to allow a user to carry more containers.
17. Claims 10-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 10,391,949 in view of Massicotte et al. (US 2013/0094920 A1).
Regarding claims 10-13, the patented claims fail to recite the anchor lock extending parallel to the bottom surface of the container body and extending from a stem. Massicotte teaches that it was already known in the art for an anchor lock (442) like that of the patented claims to extend parallel (at 442) to the bottom surface of a container and to be mounted to a stem (404). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant's invention was filed to have provided the anchor lock of the patented claims as extending parallel to the bottom surface of the container body and mounted to a stem in order to effectively lock the container in place in the manner taught by Massicotte.
18. Claims 1-9 and 14-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,744,953.
Regarding claims 1-9 and 14-19, the patented claims recite the presently claimed structure except for a second pair of vehicle anchor fixtures. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the assembly of the patented claims with a second pair of anchor fixtures, a duplicate of the first pair, the motivation being to allow a user to carry more containers.
19. Claims 10-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,744,953 in view of Massicotte et al. (US 2013/0094920 A1).
Regarding claims 10-13, the patented claims fail to recite the anchor lock extending parallel to the bottom surface of the container body and extending from a stem. Massicotte teaches that it was already known in the art for an anchor lock (442) like that of the patented claims to extend parallel (at 442) to the bottom surface of a container and to be mounted to a stem (404). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant's invention was filed to have provided the anchor lock of the patented claims as extending parallel to the bottom surface of the container body and mounted to a stem in order to effectively lock the container in place in the manner taught by Massicotte.
20. Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,472,347.
Regarding claims 1-19, the patented claims recite the presently claimed structure except for a second pair of vehicle anchor fixtures. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the assembly of the patented claims with a second pair of anchor fixtures, a duplicate of the first pair, the motivation being to allow a user to carry more containers.
21. Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,752,947.
Regarding claims 1-19, the patented claims recite the presently claimed structure except for a second pair of vehicle anchor fixtures. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the assembly of the patented claims with a second pair of anchor fixtures, a duplicate of the first pair, the motivation being to allow a user to carry more containers.
22. Claims 1-9 and 14-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,252,098.
Regarding claims 1-9 and 14-19, the patented claims recite the presently claimed structure except for a second pair of vehicle anchor fixtures. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the assembly of the patented claims with a second pair of anchor fixtures, a duplicate of the first pair, the motivation being to allow a user to carry more containers.
23. Claims 10-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,252,098 in view of Massicotte et al. (US 2013/0094920 A1).
Regarding claims 10-13, the patented claims fail to recite the anchor lock extending parallel to the bottom surface of the container body. Massicotte teaches that it was already known in the art for an anchor lock (442) like that of the patented claims to extend parallel (at 442) to the bottom surface of a container. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant's invention was filed to have provided the anchor lock of the patented claims as extending parallel to the bottom surface of the container body in order to effectively lock the container in place in the manner taught by Massicotte.
Allowable Subject Matter
24. Claims 11 and 13 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 and if all necessary terminal disclaimers are filed.
Conclusion
25. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN MATTHEW LARSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8649. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-3pm. 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 Newhouse can be reached at (571)272-4544. 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.
/JUSTIN M LARSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734 9/2/26
Prosecution Insights