DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coogan (US5,056,667), in view of Darden (20120012492).
1. Coogan teaches a collapsible, stackable cargo unit (Fig. 1) having an erected configuration (Fig. 1) in which the cargo unit may define an enclosed interior, and a collapsed configuration (Fig. 5) in which the cargo unit may be stored and transported compactly, the cargo unit comprising: a base (bottom) having a front (23), a rear (25) and two sides (29 and 27); front and rear walls extending upward from the base (Fig. 1); first (29) and second side walls (27) extending upward from the base between the front and rear walls, the first side wall (29) having a length greater than the second side wall (27) (See abstract); an integrated lid (30) hingedly attached to one or more of the front, rear, and side walls; and corner posts (12), wherein the front, rear, first side, and second side walls, and the integrated lid are positioned below the corner posts (Fig. 5, column 2, lines 53-60) in the collapsed configuration to permit the cargo unit to stack upon another cargo unit (column 7, lines 50-66). Coogan Differs in that it does not disclose a receptacle portion in the lower portion of the base, the receptacle portion sized and positioned to receive corner posts from a lower, stackable cargo unit when in the collapsed configuration. Attention, However, is directed to Darden, which discloses such a stacking arrangement (Fig. 18, Paragraph 0053, last 3 lines). Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill within the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify Coogan, in view of the teachings of Darden, in order to employ an alternative durable stacking feature that is ridged during stacking.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coogan, in view of Darden, in further view of Nesting (US6,877,628).
3. The cargo unit of claim 1, the references DIFFER in that they do not disclose wherein the integrated lid comprises a first lid member that includes a hinged edge hingedly attached to the first side wall, and a second lid member that includes a hinged edge hingedly attached to the second side wall. Attention, however is directed to Nesting which discloses two lid members (see Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill within the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify the references, in view of the teachings of Nesting, in order to have a dual lid that can allow access to one side of the container while blocking access to the other side of the container, if desired by a user.
4. The cargo unit of claim 3, the references DIFFER in that they do not disclose wherein in a collapsed configuration, the first lid member is rotated to rest on the first side wall the second lid member is generally coplanar with the second side wall. Attention, however is directed to Nesting which discloses two lid members (see Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill within the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify the references, in view of the teachings of Nesting, in order to have a dual lid that can allow access to one side of the container while blocking access to the other side of the container, if desired by a user (doing so would allow the container to collapse, as claimed).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 5-8 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.
Amended claims 9-19 are allowable.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREEN KAY THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)270-5611. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-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, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at 571-270-5531. 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.
/KAREEN K THOMAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights