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 .
Double Patenting
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).
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).
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims (1, 8, 18), 2, 4, (6, 8, 19), (7, 8, 19), (8, 20), and 11, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 12,329,693. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 1 of the instant application and claim 1, lines 1-24, and claim 8, lines 1-24, of the related patent each disclose a casket arrangement, comprising: a container having a bottom, first and second side walls, and first and second end walls forming an open top box having a length and width configured to receive a deceased human body in supine position, wherein the first and second side walls, first and second end walls and bottom are formed of biodegradable material; a rigid strip operably coupled to the first side wall and disposed between an interior of the container and at least a portion of the first side wall; and a strap handle having a first end portion, a second end portion, and an intermediate portion between the first end portion and the second end portion, the first end portion affixed to the rigid strip, the second end portion affixed to the rigid strip, and the intermediate portion extending from the first end portion through at least one opening in the first side wall, and extending from the second end portion through the at least one opening in the first side wall, such that the intermediate portion forms a flexible loop external to the container, the flexible loop sized to receive a human hand for use as a handle.
Claim 1 of the instant application also reads on claim 18, lines 1-4, and claim 12, lines 1-19, of the related patent
Claims 2, 4, 5, and 6 of the instant application clearly correspond to claims 2, 4, 6 and 7, respectively, of the related patent.
Claim 5 of the instant application also reads on claim 8, line 25, of the related patent.
Claim 5 of the instant application also reads on claim 19, lines 1-2, of the related patent.
Claim 6 of the instant application also reads on claim 8, lines 25-29, of the related patent.
Claim 6 of the instant application also reads on claim 19, lines 3-6, of the related patent.
Claim 7 of the instant application reads on claim 8, lines 30-32, of the related patent.
Claim 7 of the instant application clearly corresponds to claim 20 of the related patent.
Claim 8 of the instant application clearly corresponds to claim 11 of the related patent.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Krinsky (US#2016/0367424).
Regarding claim 1, Krinsky discloses a casket arrangement 300 (Figs. 10-11), comprising: a container 304 having a bottom 226, first and second side walls 210, and first and second end walls 214 forming an open top box 200 having a length and width configured to receive a deceased human body in supine position, wherein the first and second side walls, first and second end walls and bottom are formed of biodegradable material (cardboard, [0034]); a rigid strip 234 operably coupled to the first side wall and disposed between an interior of the container and at least a portion of the first side wall ([0052], “…the reinforcement pieces 234 are made from other reinforcing materials, such as plastic, composite materials, and the like.”); and a strap handle 238 having a first end portion 240, a second end portion 240, and an intermediate portion between the first end portion and the second end portion, the first end portion affixed to the rigid strip at 236, the second end portion affixed to the rigid strip at 236, and the intermediate portion extending from the first end portion through at least one opening 224 in the first side wall, and extending from the second end portion through the at least one opening 224 in the first side wall, such that the intermediate portion forms a flexible loop external to the container, the flexible loop sized to receive a human hand for use as a handle.
Regarding claim 2, wherein: the at least one opening comprises a first opening 224 and a second opening spaced 224 apart from the first opening; the intermediate portion extends from the first end 240 portion through the first opening; and the intermediate portion extends from the second end portion 240 through the second opening (see Fig. 10B).
Regarding claim 4, wherein the strap handle 238 is formed of a biodegradable material ([0054], natural fibers).
Regarding claim 5, further comprising at least a first lid 302 covering the interior of the container.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krinsky (US#2016/0367424) in view of Davis et al. (US#2017/0281448).
Regarding claim 6, although Krinsky discloses its lid 302 is configured to mount to the container 304 such that the lid body extends above the container in a non-inverted position, its lid extends outside the perimeter of the open top box of the container as opposed to being configured to fit within the container in an inverted position. However, as evidenced by Davis, such a configuration is known in the casket art, see lid 106 which mounts to the container 102 such that the lid body extends above the container in a non-inverted position, and is configured to fit within the container in an inverted position when collapsed for shipping (Fig. 9 and [0047]). Therefore, as evidenced by Davis, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Krinsky by replacing its lid with a lid configured to fit within the container in an inverted position. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The substitution of the lid configured to fit within the container in an inverted position would allow for the lid to be placed within the casket container in a collapsed state to facilitate compact shipping.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krinsky (US#2016/0367424) in view of Davis et al. (US#2017/0281448), as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Davis et al. (US#2011/0000059).
Regarding claim 7, although Krinsky discloses its lid 302 is configured to mount to the container 304 such that the lid body extends above the container in a non-inverted position, Krinsky fails to disclose wherein the first lid further comprises at least a first mounting tether configured to retain the first lid on the container in the non-inverted position. However, as evidenced by Davis ‘059, such a configuration is known in the casket art, see [0039] and Fig. 8c wherein lid 114 is configured to mount to the container 112 such that the lid body extends above the container in a non-inverted position, wherein the lid further comprises (i.e. directly cooperates with) a mounting tether 134 configured to retain the first lid on the container in the non-inverted position. Therefore, as evidenced by Davis ‘059, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Krinsky such the first lid further comprises (i.e. directly cooperates with) at least a first mounting tether configured to retain the first lid on the container in the non-inverted position. The rational for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is the proposed combination is based upon combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The inclusion of the tether would ensure securement between the lid and container.
Regarding claim 8, Krinsky discloses wherein the first lid 302 is formed of corrugated paper (i.e. cardboard, [0055]). Although Davis ‘059 fails to disclose the tether is formed from biodegradable materials, it would have been an obvious design consideration to one of ordinary skill int the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Krinsky, as modified above in claim 6, such that the tether was formed of a biodegradable material for environmental benefit as the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, Krinsky discloses wherein the first end portion 240 is affixed to, and when the handle 238 is pulled outward has a surface directly contacting and thus laying on, the rigid strip 234 at the first location 236, and the second end portion 240 is affixed to, and when the handle 238 is pulled outward has a surface directly contacting and thus laying on, the rigid strip 234 at the second location 236 that is spaced apart from the first location (see Fig. 10B). However, these surfaces of the first and second end portions 240 which are capable of laying on the rigid strip at the first and second locations cannot lay flat on the rigid strip as the end portions are formed as rounded knots, see Fig. 10B.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
It is noted MacDonald (US#4041582) discloses in Fig. 2 a casket arrangement wherein a tether 26 is configured to retain the lid 14 on the container 11.
It is noted GB 2358857 cited by the applicant discloses in Fig. 5 a casket arrangement wherein a tether 39,41 is configured to retain the lid 13 on the container 11,15.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM L MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-7068. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 6:00 PM.
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, Jason San can be reached at (571) 272-6531. 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.
WILLIAM L. MILLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3677
/WILLIAM L MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights