DETAILED ACTION
Continuation Reissue Application
The instant US Application No. 19/270,524 (i) seeks reissue of US Patent No. 11,230,410 B2, and (ii) is a continuation reissue of earlier US Application No. 17/937,893, now abandoned.
Prior Reexamination Proceeding
US Patent No. 11,230,410 B2 was reexamined in prior Reexamination Control No. 90/015,056.
Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate No. US 11,230,410 C1 issued on July 28, 2023 and indicated that (i) patent claims 1-10 are canceled, and (ii) patent claim 11 was not reexamined. Thus, claim 11 is the only patent claim that remained after the conclusion of the reexamination proceeding.
As explained in MPEP 1449.01, subsection I.A.:
Any claim canceled by the reexamination certificate will be (i) treated the same way as a claim lost in litigation, and (ii) deemed as canceled. The remaining claims will be examined.
If the reissue application is subsequently allowed, the claims that were canceled by the reexamination certificate will be formally canceled in the reissue application by examiner’s amendment unless they have already been canceled by the applicant.
Generally, further prosecution will be limited to claims narrower than those claims canceled as a result of the reexamination certificate (this includes any existing patent claims and any claims added in the reexamination proceeding). Any claims added in the reissue application, which are equal in scope to claims canceled as a result of the reexamination certificate, or are broader than the scope of the canceled claims, will generally be deemed as surrendered. Such claims will be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 based on the recapture doctrine. See MPEP 1412.02. Further, a rejection of such claims based on estoppel will be made. See MPEP 2308.03. Concerning the appropriateness of such recapture and estoppel rejections, see the decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in Ex parte Morimoto, 18 USPQ2d 1540 (BPAI 1990).
As an exception to the general rule explained above, claims that are broader than the scope of the claims canceled as a result of the reexamination certificate may be presented where:
(a) The broader claims in the reissue application can be patentable, despite the fact that the claims in the reexamination are not; and
(b) The broader claims in the reissue application could not have been presented in the reexamination proceeding.
Criterion (a) can occur if:
The broadened claims in the reissue application have an earlier effective filing date than those canceled by the reexamination certificate (as where the claims in the reissue application are supported by a parent application, and the reexamination claims are not).
The subject matter of the broadened claims in the reissue application can be sworn behind, and the more specific subject matter of the reexamination claims cannot be sworn behind.
Criterion (b) can occur if the claims in the reissue application are broader than all claims of the patent as it existed during reexamination (e.g., claims directed to a distinct invention).
What happened in the concluded reexamination proceeding must be taken into account by the examiner as to any new claims presented by the reissue application.
Status of Submission
The preliminary amendment filed in this application on July 16, 2025 has been entered.
Claims Subject to Examination
New reissue claims 12-31 are subject to examination. Patent claim 11 has been canceled. Patent claims 1-10 were previously canceled by the earlier reexamination certificate.
Claim Construction
During examination, the pending claims are normally interpreted according to the broadest reasonable interpretation standard (hereinafter, the “BRI standard”). That is, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP 2111 et seq.
An exception to the BRI standard occurs when the applicant acts as their own lexicographer. For this exception to apply, the applicant must clearly set forth a special definition of a claim term in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning it would otherwise possess. See MPEP 2111.01, subsection IV.
Another exception or special case occurs when a claim recites a means-plus-function limitation that must be interpreted in accordance with 35 USC 112 ¶ 6, or 35 USC 112(f). See MPEP 2181. According to the guidance provided by Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc), 35 USC 112 ¶ 6 applies when the claim term fails to recite (i) sufficiently definite structure, and/or (ii) sufficient structure for performing the claimed function.
In order to facilitate examination and provide a clear record, the examiner sets forth explicit claim construction for the claim terms addressed below.
The examiner finds that the terms “latch member” (claim 12, l. 7), “retaining member” (claim 12, l. 13), and “locomoting arrangement” (claim 24, l. 2) require analysis in order to determine whether these terms invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). According to the guidance provided by Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc), 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applies when the claim term fails to recite (i) sufficiently definite structure, or (ii) sufficient structure for performing the claimed function(s).
The claimed “latch member” is not found to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because claim 12 recites sufficient structure (claim 12, ll. 7-19) for performing the claimed latching function.
The claimed “retaining member”, as recited in claim 12, is found to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). This term is synonymous with “means for retaining” because (i) “member” is a nonce term that fails to set forth sufficient structure for performing the claimed function, and (ii) the modifier “retaining” fails to recite sufficiently definite structure or sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. The modifier “retaining” is the gerund form of the verb “retain”. Therefore, it defines an action (or function) rather than a specific structure. However, the claimed “retaining member”, as later recited in claim 15, does not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because claim 15 recites sufficient structure for performing the claimed retaining function.
The claimed “locomoting arrangement”, as recited in claim 24, is found to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). This term is synonymous with “means for locomoting” because (i) “arrangement” is a nonce term that fails to set forth sufficient structure for performing the claimed function, and (ii) the modifier “locomoting” fails to recite sufficiently definite structure or sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. The modifier “locomoting” is the gerund form of the verb “locomote”. Therefore, it defines an action (or function) rather than a specific structure. However, the claimed “locomoting arrangement”, as later recited in claim 25, does not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because claim 25 recites sufficient structure for performing the claimed retaining function.
Since the terms “retaining member” (claim 12, l. 13) and “locomoting arrangement” (claim 24, l. 2) invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it is necessary to ascertain the corresponding structure identified in the specification and equivalents thereto.
With respect to the claimed “retaining member”, the specification describes (a) the first embodiment in the form of hook-like or saddle-shaped protrusions 160A, 160B, and (b) the second embodiment in the form of a hook-like or saddle-shaped protrusion 360. See the further explanation of these embodiments above. See also col. 2, ll. 58-61. Thus, the corresponding structure identified in the specification is a hook-like or saddle-shaped protrusion for performing the claimed retaining function. The skilled artisan would recognize that conventional latch retainers having other shapes constitute “equivalents” under 35 USC 112(f).
With respect to the claimed “locomoting arrangement”, the corresponding structure identified in the specification is at least a pair of wheels disposed at a rear, bottom portion of the bottom most container. The skilled artisan would recognize that conventional ground engaging alternatives to wheels (e.g., runners) constitute “equivalents” under 35 USC 112(f).
Objection to Amendments – Formalities
The specification amendments filed on July 16, 2025 are objected to because the status of earlier US Application No. 17/937,893 should be identified as “now abandoned”.
The claims amendments filed on July 16, 2025 are objected to because canceled claims 1-10 are presented improperly. Since claims 1-10 were previously canceled as a result of the reexamination proceeding, the text of these claims should be presented, and their text should be lined through. See MPEP 1453, subsection VI.
Canceled claim 11 (canceled by applicant in this reissue application) is properly presented and should be retained in its present form.
Original Disclosure – Definition
The instant application seeks reissue of US Patent No. 11,230,410 B2, which issued from US Application No. 15/555,711, which was the national stage of International Application No. PCT/IL2016/050250, which claimed priority to US Provisional Application No. 62/129,069. The “original disclosure” is the disclosure of International Application No. PCT/IL2016/050250 as filed on March 6, 2016. Any subject matter added to the disclosure during either the prosecution of the instant reissue application or the earlier-concluded prosecution of Application No. 15/555,711 does not constitute part of the “original disclosure”.
Prohibition of New Matter
35 USC 132(a) prohibits any amendment that introduces new matter into the disclosure of the invention.
35 USC 251(a) prohibits the introduction of new matter into the application for reissue.
Objection to Amendments – New Matter
The amendment filed on July 16, 2025 is objected to under 35 USC 132(a) and 35 USC 251(a) because it improperly introduces new matter.
The first paragraph of the patent specification is amended to incorporate by reference the disclosures of all of US Patent No. 11,230,410 B2 (which issued from US Application No. 15/555,711), International Application No. PCT/IL2016/050250 and US Provisional Application No. 62/129,069. However, the original disclosure did not incorporate by reference the disclosures of all of US Patent No. 11,230,410 B2, International Application No. PCT/IL2016/050250 and US Provisional Application No. 62/129,069. Thus, the new incorporation by reference constitutes new matter.
New claim 12 recites “a cover for closing the top opening, the cover having a top surface, side walls extending downward from the top surface, and a rim extending along and outwardly protruding from at least a portion of the side walls of the cover” (ll. 4-6). The specification does not describe and the drawings do not clearly establish support for (i) a rim as an element of the cover that is distinct from the side walls of the cover, and (ii) a rim extending along and outwardly protruding from at least a portion of the side walls of the cover.
New claim 12 recites “at least one u-shaped latch member that comprises two side portions extending from the side walls of the cover, each side portion defined between a first terminal end and a second terminal end, and a horizontal portion connecting the second terminal ends of the two side portions” (ll. 7-9). The specification does not describe and the drawings do not clearly establish support for the latch member having (i) two side portions extending from plural side walls of the cover (as shown, each latch member extends from only one side wall of the cover), (ii) “second terminal ends” connected by another portion of the latch member, and (iii) a “horizontal” portion.
New claim 12 recites “at least one retaining member on at least one of the side walls of the container and positioned parallel to a horizontal portion of the at least one u-shaped latch member, such that the at least one u-shaped latch member is configured for engaging with a retaining member of at least one other such container when in the second position to connect the container to the at least one other container, and when the at least one u-shaped latch member is at the first, resting non-engaged position, the horizontal portion of the at least one u-shaped latch member rests against the rim” (ll. 13-19). The specification does not describe and the drawings do not clearly establish support for (i) the latch member having a “horizontal” portion, (ii) the latch member configured for engaging with a retaining member of plural other containers (plural being encompassed by “at least one other such container” and “the at least one other container”), (iii) the “horizontal” portion of the latch member resting against “the rim” of the cover when the latch member is in the first, resting non-engaged position.
New claim 13 recites “the rim comprises a recess, the horizontal portion being received in the recess when in the first, resting non-engaged position”. The specification does not describe and the drawings do not clearly establish support for (i) a rim as an element of the cover that is distinct from the side walls of the cover, (ii) the latch member having a “horizontal” portion, and (iii) the “horizontal” portion of the latch member received in a recess of the “rim” when in the first, resting non-engaged position.
New claim 14 recites “the at least one u-shaped latch constitutes a handle for bearing the weight of the container assembly and goods disposed within the container”. While the patent specification describes the claimed latch as constituting a handle, the patent specification fails to describe the claimed latch as bearing the weight of the container assembly and goods disposed within the container. Based on the original disclosure, the skilled artisan would not know whether (i) the claimed latch is meant to bear some or all of the weight of the container assembly and goods disposed therein, (ii) the disclosed carrying handle 124 (which is separate from the claimed latch) is meant to bear some or all of the weight of the container assembly and goods disposed therein, or (iii) the user is meant to bear some of the weight of the container assembly and goods disposed therein (e.g., by placing the user’s hand under the container).
New claim 15 recites “the at least one retaining member is an outwardly protruding hook-shaped member, shaped for holding the horizontal portion of the at least one u-shaped latch member in the second, engaged position”. The specification describes the “retaining member” as an outwardly protruding “hook like” member, e.g., a saddle configured and shaped to hold and/or catch and prevent movement of the latch when locked thereon. There is insufficient support in the original disclosure for the newly claimed “hook-shaped” member.
New claims 15, 16, 18, 23, 26, 27 and 29 each recite “the horizontal portion”. As explained above, the specification does not describe and the drawings do not clearly establish support for the latch member having a “horizontal” portion.
New claim 17 recites “each side wall of the container comprises a pair of the at least one retaining member, the retaining members of the pair being horizontally spaced apart from one another”. The specification does not describe and the drawings do not clearly establish support for a pair of retaining members that are “horizontally” spaced apart from one another.
New claim 17 recites “each side wall of the container comprises a pair of the at least one retaining member”, and new claim 18 recites “the horizontal portion of the at least one u-shaped latch member being engageable with the retaining members of the pair”. The specification does not describe and the drawings do not clearly establish support for one latch member (encompassed by “the at least one u-shaped latch member) that is engageable with the pair of retaining members of “each side wall”.
New claim 23 recites “the second container being stackable over the first container such that at least one retaining member of the second container is in-register with the horizontal portion of the at least one u-shaped latch member of the first container” (ll. 2-4). The specification does not describe and the drawings do not clearly establish support for (i) the retaining member of the second container being “in-register with” a portion of the latch member of the first container, and (ii) the latch member having a “horizontal” portion.
New claim 26 recites “the at least one retaining member of the second container is an outwardly protruding hook-shaped member, shaped for holding the horizontal portion of the at least one u-shaped latch member of the first container in the second, engaged position”. See the above explanation with respect to claim 15.
New claim 28 recites “each side wall of the second container comprises a pair of the at least one retaining member, the retaining members of the pair being horizontally spaced apart from one another”. See the above explanation with respect to claim 17.
New claim 28 recites “each side wall of the second container comprises a pair of the at least one retaining members”, and new claim 29 recites “the horizontal portion of the at least one u-shaped latch member of the first container being engageable with the retaining members of the pair”. See the above explanation with respect to claim 18.
For these reasons, the amendment filed on July 16, 2025 improperly introduces new matter. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in response to this Office action.
Consent of Assignee
This application is objected to under 37 CFR 1.172(a) as lacking a proper written consent of all assignees owning an undivided interest in the patent. The consent of the assignee must be in compliance with 37 CFR 1.172. See MPEP 1410.01.
The Form PTO/AIA /05 filed on August 7, 2025 is defective because it is not properly executed for the following reasons:
The field (box) for supplying the typed or printed name of the person signing has been left blank.
Two names are handwritten on the form, but it is unclear if either of the named individuals actually signed the form.
The field (box) for supplying the signature of the person signing contains text that appears to have been applied via a stamp. Such a stamp does not constitute a proper signature.
The field (box) for supplying the signature of the person signing appears to contain some form of handwritten characters (perhaps initials). However, this does not constitute a clear signature. Even if it is a signature, it is unclear which of the named individuals signed the form.
A proper written consent of the assignee in compliance with 37 CFR 1.172 and 3.73 is required in reply to this Office action.
Reissue Oath/Declaration
The reissue declaration filed on August 7, 2025 is defective because it fails to specifically identify at least one error which is relied upon to support the reissue application, i.e., an error that can properly serve as the basis for reissue. See 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP 1414-1414.01.
As required by 37 CFR 1.175(a), the reissue oath/declaration must specifically identify at least one error pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 251 being relied upon as the basis for reissue. In identifying the error, it is sufficient that the reissue oath/declaration identify a single word, phrase, or expression in the specification or in an original claim, and how it renders the original patent wholly or partly inoperative or invalid. It is not sufficient to merely state that applicant seeks to broaden or narrow the scope of a patent claim. Further, a statement in the reissue oath/declaration of “…failure to include a claim directed to…” and then reciting all the limitations of a newly added claim would not be considered a sufficient error statement because applicant has not pointed out what the other claims lacked that the newly added claim has, or vice versa.
In the present case, the reissue declaration states the following:
This application is a broadening reissue.
The original patent is partly inoperative because it claims less than the patentee is entitled to claim. At least original claim 1 is broadened by at least the addition of new independent claim 12.
As explained above:
Patent claims 1-10 were canceled as a result of Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate No. US 11,230,410 C1 issued on July 28, 2023.
Generally, further prosecution will be limited to claims narrower than those claims canceled as a result of the reexamination certificate (this includes any existing patent claims and any claims added in the reexamination proceeding).
Any claims added in the reissue application, which are equal in scope to claims canceled as a result of the reexamination certificate, or are broader than the scope of the canceled claims, will generally be deemed as surrendered.
Thus, it is improper to characterize the instant application as a “broadening reissue”.
Further, applicant’s error statement fails to specifically identify at least one word, phrase, or expression in the specification or in an original claim, and how it renders the original patent wholly or partly inoperative or invalid.
The reissue declaration filed on August 7, 2025 is defective because it fails to accurately identify the application to which it is directed. The box is checked indicating that the specification “is attached hereto”. However, a copy of the specification was not attached to (or otherwise filed along with) the declaration filed on August 7, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 251:
(a) IN GENERAL.—Whenever any patent is, through error, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Director shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue.
(b) MULTIPLE REISSUED PATENTS.— The Director may issue several reissued patents for distinct and separate parts of the thing patented, upon demand of the applicant, and upon payment of the required fee for a reissue for each of such reissued patents.
(c) APPLICABILITY OF THIS TITLE.— The provisions of this title relating to applications for patent shall be applicable to applications for reissue of a patent, except that application for reissue may be made and sworn to by the assignee of the entire interest if the application does not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the original patent or the application for the original patent was filed by the assignee of the entire interest.
(d) REISSUE PATENT ENLARGING SCOPE OF CLAIMS.—No reissued patent shall be granted enlarging the scope of the claims of the original patent unless applied for within two years from the grant of the original patent.
GROUND 1: Claims 12-31are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being based upon a defective reissue oath/declaration. See 37 CFR 1.175. The nature of the defect(s) in the reissue oath/declaration is explained above.
GROUND 2: Claims 12-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 because they introduce new matter into the application for reissue. The new matter recited in the claims is explained in detail above.
GROUND 3: Claims 12-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being an improper recapture of broadened claimed subject matter surrendered in the earlier-concluded reexamination proceeding.
GROUND 3, PART 1
As explained above:
Patent claims 1-10 were canceled as a result of Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate No. US 11,230,410 C1 issued on July 28, 2023.
Generally, further prosecution will be limited to claims narrower than those claims canceled as a result of the reexamination certificate.
Any claims added in the reissue application, which are equal in scope to claims canceled as a result of the reexamination certificate, or are broader than the scope of the canceled claims, will generally be deemed as surrendered. Such claims will be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 based on the recapture doctrine. See MPEP 1412.02. Concerning the appropriateness of such a recapture rejection, see the decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in Ex parte Morimoto, 18 USPQ2d 1540 (BPAI 1990).
New reissue claims 12-31 are broader than the scope of canceled patent claims 1-10, in at least some respects, because claims 12-31 do not require the following subject matter recited in patent claim 1: wherein when the at least one latch member is at the first, resting non-engaged position, the at least one latch member is flush with the side wall of the cover; and wherein when at the second, engaged position, the cover of the container can be disposed into an open position. Further, new reissue claims 12-22 are broader than the scope of canceled patent claims 1-10, in at least one respect, because claims 12-22 do not require “A container assembly” as recited in patent claim 1. Thus, claims 12-31 improperly recapture broadened claimed subject matter surrendered in the earlier-concluded reexamination proceeding.
Applicant has not established that: (a) the broader claims in the reissue application are patentable, despite the fact that the claims in the reexamination are not; and (b) the broader claims in the reissue application could not have been presented in the reexamination proceeding.
GROUND 3, PART 2
During the earlier-concluded examination of US Application No. 15/555,711 (which issued as US Patent No. 11,230,410 B2), applicant responded to the previous examiner’s prior art rejections by amending claim 1 to recite “wherein when at the second, engaged position, the cover of the container can be disposed into an open position” and arguing that this limitation was not taught by the prior art.1 Thus, the limitation “wherein when at the second, engaged position, the cover of the container can be disposed into an open position” constitutes a surrender-generating limitation, i.e., a limitation added to the patent claims and relied upon by applicant to secure allowance. Omission of this surrender-generating limitation from new reissue claims 12-33 constitutes impermissible recapture. Further, reissue claims 12-31 do not avoid recapture based on overlooked aspects. As explained more fully in GROUND 4, claims 12-31 do not constitute claims to an overlooked aspect since they are directed to an invention that was covered by the claims in the original application but later excluded by amendment.
GROUND 4: Claims 12-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 for lack of any defect in the original patent and lack of any error in obtaining the original patent.
During the earlier-concluded examination of US Application No. 15/555,711 (which issued as US Patent No. 11,230,410 B2), applicant:
Initially presented claims that were generic to the following disclosed species: Species A shown in Figs. 1A-3 and including a U-shaped (or generally U-shaped) latch member that rests against a side wall of the cover when in the resting, non-engaged position; and Species B shown in Figs. 4-5B and 8A-9B and including a latch member (whose shape is not specified in the specification, but shown as resembling a “U” but having diagonal corners) that is flush with a surface of the cover when in the resting, non-engaged position.
Responded to the previous examiner’s prior art rejections by amending claim 1 to recite “wherein when the at least one latch member is at the first, resting non-engaged position, the at least one latch member is flush with the side wall of the cover”.2 Thus, claim 1 was amended to be directed specifically to Species B having the latch member “flush” with a surface of the cover in the resting, non-engaged position.
The failure to timely file a divisional or continuing application covering a second (separate) invention is not considered to be error causing a patent granted on claims to a first invention to be partially inoperative by reason of claiming less than the applicant had a right to claim. See MPEP 1402 and 1412.01. Further, claims to a second (separate) invention not covered by the claims of the issued patent do not constitute claims to overlooked aspects when the second invention was covered by the claims in the original application, but the claims of the original application were later amended to exclude the second invention. See MPEP 1412.01.
In this case, new reissue claims 12-31 cover a second invention (separate species) not covered by patent claims 1-11. However, the claims initially presented in US Application No. 15/555,711 were generic to (and, thus, covered) the second invention to which new reissue claims 12-31 are directed. Applicant’s failure to timely file a divisional or continuing application covering the second invention (covered by reissue claims 12-31) is not an error causing the granted patent to be partially inoperative by reason of claiming less than the applicant had a right to claim. Further, reissue claims 12-31 do not constitute claims to an overlooked aspect since they are directed to a second invention that was covered by the claims in the original application (but later excluded by amendment). Thus, applicant’s failure to pursue new reissue claims 12-31 (to a second invention) during the original examination, or via a divisional or continuing application, is not an error correctable by reissue of the original patent under 35 U.S.C. 251.
Claim Rejections – Estoppel
GROUND 5: Claims 12-31 are rejected on the grounds of estoppel based on a finding that these claims are broader in at least one respect than patent claims canceled as a result of the prior reexamination certificate.
As explained above:
Patent claims 1-10 were canceled as a result of Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate No. US 11,230,410 C1 issued on July 28, 2023.
Any claim canceled by the reexamination certificate will be treated the same way as a claim lost in litigation.
Generally, further prosecution will be limited to claims narrower than those claims canceled as a result of the reexamination certificate.
Any claims added in the reissue application, which are equal in scope to claims canceled as a result of the reexamination certificate, or are broader than the scope of the canceled claims, will generally be deemed as surrendered. A rejection of such claims based on estoppel will be made. See MPEP 2308.03. Concerning the appropriateness of such an estoppel rejection, see the decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in Ex parte Morimoto, 18 USPQ2d 1540 (BPAI 1990).
New reissue claims 12-31 are broader than the scope of canceled patent claims 1-10, in at least some respects, because claims 12-31 do not require the following subject matter recited in patent claim 1: wherein when the at least one latch member is at the first, resting non-engaged position, the at least one latch member is flush with the side wall of the cover; and wherein when at the second, engaged position, the cover of the container can be disposed into an open position. Further, new reissue claims 12-22 are broader than the scope of canceled patent claims 1-10, in at least one respect, because claims 12-22 do not require “A container assembly” as recited in patent claim 1. Thus, applicant is estopped from pursuing claims 12-31 by reissue of the patent.
Applicant has not established that: (a) the broader claims in the reissue application are patentable, despite the fact that the claims in the reexamination are not; and (b) the broader claims in the reissue application could not have been presented in the reexamination proceeding.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
GROUND 6: Claims 12-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement because these claims recite new matter. See the explanation above.
GROUND 7: Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The written description requirement serves both to satisfy applicant’s obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to demonstrate that the inventor(s) was in possession of the invention that is claimed. It is not enough that a skilled artisan could theoretically construct his/her own version of the claimed invention. Rather, applicant bears the burden of setting forth sufficient information to show that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Thus, the written description requirement requires applicant to go beyond a discussion of mere concepts and suggestions. It is not sufficient to merely outline desired results that the claimed invention is expected to achieve. Rather, the specification must explain how the invention is structured and how it functions in order to achieve the desired results. While subject matter that is conventional or well known in the art need not be described in detail, the specification must provide a complete description of each of the essential features recited in the claims which cause the claimed invention to achieve the desired results.
New claim 25 recites “the locomoting arrangement comprises at least one pair of wheels disposed at a rear, bottom portion of the first container”. The specification fails to describe and the drawings fail to show any embodiment having more than a pair of wheels (encompassed by “at least one” pair of wheels). The disclosure fails to explain how such an embodiment would be structured and how it would function. Absent a complete description of these essential features, the written description fails to demonstrate that the inventor(s) was in possession of the invention that is claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
GROUND 8: Claims 12-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 12 is indefinite because it recites “at least one u-shaped latch member that comprises…a horizontal portion” (ll. 7-9) and later recites “a horizontal portion of the at least one u-shaped latch member” (l. 14). It is unclear whether the claim requires the latch member to have one horizontal portion or two horizontal portions.
In claim 12, the term “the horizontal portion” (l. 18) is indefinite because it is unclear whether this term refers to the horizontal portion introduced at ll. 7-9, or the horizontal portion introduced at l. 14, or both. For the same reason, claims 15, 16, 18, 23, 26, 27 and 29 are indefinite du to the recitation of “the horizontal portion”.
New claim 17 recites “each side wall of the container comprises a pair of the at least one retaining member”, and new claim 18 recites “the horizontal portion of the at least one u-shaped latch member being engageable with the retaining members of the pair”. This claimed subject matter is indefinite because it fails to conform to the description of the invention in the specification. One disclosed latch member (encompassed by “the at least one u-shaped latch member) is not capable of being engageable with the pair of retaining members of “each side wall”.
In claim 19, the term “the at least one u-shaped latch members” (l. 1) lacks proper antecedent basis due to the recitation of the plural term “members”.
Claim 12 recites “the cover having…side walls extending downward from the top surface” (ll. 4-5), and claim 19 recites “each pivotably connected to a respective side wall of the cover” (ll. 2-3). It is unclear how many cover side walls are required by claim 19. Are the respective side walls required by claim 19 the same side walls introduced in claim 12, or does claim 19 require additional side walls?
In claim 19, the recitation “wherein the at least one retaining member comprises a corresponding pair of retaining members” (ll. 5-6) is indefinite due to the use of the term “corresponding”. The claim does not clearly define what the recited retaining members correspond to.
Claim 12 recites “the container comprising: two side walls” (ll. 1-2), and claim 19 recites “each retaining member projecting from a respective side wall of the container” (l. 6). It is unclear how many container side walls are required by claim 19. Are the respective side walls required by claim 19 the same side walls introduced in claim 12, or does claim 19 require additional side walls?
Claim 12 recites “the at least one u-shaped latch member is configured for engaging with a retaining member of at least one other such container when in the second position to connect the container to the at least one other container” (ll. 14-17), and claim 23 recites “comprising a first container according to claim 12 and a second container according to claim 12, the second container being stackable over the first container” (ll. 1-3). It is unclear how many containers are required by claim 23. Are the first and second containers required by claim 19 the same containers required by ll. 14-17 of claim 12, or does claim 23 require additional containers?
Claim 23 recites “A container assembly comprising a first container according to claim 12 and a second container according to claim 12” (ll. 1-2). Claim 12 requires each container to have at least one u-shaped latch member having a horizontal portion. Since each container has at least one latch member with a horizontal portion, more than one horizontal portion is required. However, claim 27 uses the singular term “the horizontal portion” (l. 2). It is unclear which of the horizontal portions claim 27 is referring to.
In the claim 28 recitation “each side wall of the second container comprises a pair of the at least one retaining members”, the term “the at least one retaining members” (l. 2) lacks proper antecedent basis due to the recitation of the plural term “members”. Claim 12, as modified by claim 23, does not require each container to have plural retaining members.
New claim 28 recites “each side wall of the second container comprises a pair of the at least one retaining members”, and new claim 29 recites “the horizontal portion of the at least one u-shaped latch member of the first container being engageable with the retaining members of the pair”. See the above explanation with respect to claim 18.
In claim 30, the term “the at least one u-shaped of the first container” (l. 2) is incomplete and/or lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 12 recites “the cover having…side walls extending downward from the top surface” (ll. 4-5), and claim 30 recites “each pivotably connected to a respective side wall of the cover” (l. 3). See the above explanation with respect to claim 19.
In claim 30, the recitation “the at least one retaining member of the second container comprises a corresponding pair of retaining members” (ll. 5-6) is indefinite due to the use of the term “corresponding”. See the above explanation with respect to claim 19.
Claim 12 recites “the container comprising: two side walls” (ll. 1-2), and claim 30 recites “each retaining member projecting from a respective side wall of the second container” (ll. 5-6). See the above explanation with respect to claim 19.
Listing of Prior Art
The following is a listing of the prior art cited in this Office action together with the shorthand reference used for each document (listed alphabetically):
“Baker et al.”
US Patent No. 7,905,353 B2
“Meier et al.”
US Publication No. 2003/0094392 A1
“Piacenza et al. ‘255”
US Publication No. 2009/0236255A1
“Piacenza et al. ‘382”
DE Publication No. 10 2007 032 382 A1 (with translation)
“Sands et al.”
US Publication No. 2005/0224384 A1
“Sosnovsky et al.”
US Publication No. 2011/0139666 A1
The prior art listed above is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure but is not relied upon to reject any claim.
Piacenza et al. ‘255 teaches a container assembly comprising:
Plural stackable containers 11 for storage and transport of goods, with each container comprising (i) side walls (see Figs. 1-2) defining opposite sides 16 and an upper opening (see Fig. 2), (ii) a bottom wall (see Fig. 2) cooperating with the side walls to define an interior space (see Fig. 2), and (iii) a cover 12 for closing the upper opening (see Fig. 2) and having a top surface (see Figs. 1-2 and 5). See Figs. 1-2 and 5; ¶¶ 0023-0028.
First retaining members in the form of hook-like or saddle-shaped protrusions 21 provided on the side walls that define the opposite sides 16 of the containers 11. See Figs. 1-2; ¶¶ 0028, 0030.
First hinged latch members in the form of latch flaps (or flap-like latch elements) 18 that are (i) provided on opposite sides 15 of the covers 12, (ii) positioned parallel to the first retaining members 21, and (iii) movable (pivotal) between (a) a first resting position in which they are received in recessed seats 13 in the respective cover 12 so as to be flush with a top side wall of the respective cover 12, and (b) a second engaged position in which they engage respective ones of the first retaining members 21 of an adjacent one of the containers 11 to connect the containers 11 in stacked relationship. See Figs. 1-2 and 5; ¶¶ 0028-0033. The latch members 18 are U-shaped or generally U-shaped and have plural free ends hinged (i.e., pivotably connected) to the respective cover 12. See Figs. 1 and 5; ¶¶ 0029-0030, 0035.
Second retaining members in the form of hook-like or saddle-shaped protrusions 22 provided on side walls that define the opposite sides 15 of the covers 12. See Figs. 1-2; ¶¶ 0028, 0030.
Second hinged latch members in the form of latch flaps (or flap-like latch elements) 18 that are (i) provided on the containers 11, (ii) positioned parallel to the second retaining members 22, and (iii) movable (pivotal) between (a) a first resting position in which they extend from the opposite sides 16 of the containers 11, and (b) a second engaged position in which they engage respective ones of the second retaining members 22 of an adjacent cover 12 to connect the containers 11 to the covers 12. See Figs. 1-2 and 5; ¶¶ 0028-0033.
Piacenza et al. ‘382 teaches a container assembly comprising:
Plural stackable containers 11, 12 for storage and transport of goods, with each container comprising (i) side walls 15, 16 defining an upper opening (see Figs. 3 and 5), (ii) a bottom wall 14 cooperating with the side walls 15, 16 to define an interior space 17, (iii) a hinged cover 13 having a top surface (see Figs. 1-2) and being pivotally connected to a rear container wall (see Figs. 3 and 5), and (iv) first retaining members in the form of hook-like or saddle-shaped protrusions 21 provided on the side walls 15, 16. See Figs. 1-5; ¶¶ 0024-0027, 0029-0030, 0032, 0039, 0048.
Hinged latch members in the form of latch flaps (or flap-like latch elements) 18 that are (i) provided on the covers 13, (ii) positioned parallel to the first retaining members 21, and (iii) movable (pivotal) between a first resting position (see the upper latch members 18 in Figs. 1-2) and a second engaged position (see the lower latch members 18 in Figs. 1-2). See Figs. 1-5; ¶¶ 0032-0037, 0049. The latch members 18 have plural free ends (see Fig. 1, which shows the latch members 18 having a bifurcated structure) hinged to the respective covers 13.
In the embodiment of Figs. 1-4, Sosnovsky et al. discloses a container assembly comprising:
Plural stackable containers 12a, 12b for storage and transport of goods, with each container comprising (i) a container body 14 having a rear side wall 26, a left side wall 28, a front side wall 30, and a right side wall 32 defining an upper opening 16, (ii) a bottom wall 31 of the container body 14 cooperating with the side walls 26, 28, 30, 32 to define an interior space 18, (iii) a hinged cover 20 having a top surface (see Figs. 1-3) and being pivotally connected to the rear side wall 26 by hinges 29 (see Fig. 8), and (iv) first retaining members in the form of hook-like or saddle-shaped protrusions 24b provided on the left and right side walls 28, 32. See Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 0017-0018, 0021, 0024.
Hinged latch members in the form of latch flaps (or flap-like latch elements) 22a that are (i) provided on the covers 203, (ii) positioned parallel to the first retaining members 24b, and (iii) movable (pivotal) between a first resting position (see the upper latch members 22a in Figs. 1-3) and a second engaged position (see the lower latch members 22a in Figs. 1 and 3). See Figs. 1-3; ¶¶ 0017, 0024-0030.
When the containers 12a, 12b of Sosnovsky et al. are stacked, the latch members 22a on the lower container 12a are pivoted upward and engage respective first retaining members 24b of the upper container 12b to connect the stacked containers in the second engaged position. See Figs. 1-3; ¶¶ 0017, 0024, 0028-0030. When not used to connect stacked containers (see the upper latch members 22a in Figs. 1-3), the latch members 22a are pivoted downward so as to extend downward from outer side walls (see Fig. 3 and Footnote 7) of the respective cover 20 and engage second retaining members 24a on their respective container in the first resting position to thereby retain the latch members in a stowed condition such that they do not protrude from the containers. See Figs. 1-3; ¶¶ 0017, 0025, 0028-0029.
Even though the latch members 22a are secured to the second retaining members 24a in the first resting position, Sosnovsky et al. refers to this as an “unlatched position” (i.e., non-engaged position) in ¶¶ 0041 and 0044 since they are not functioning to secure the stacked containers in this position. Further, ¶ 0041 states that “In other embodiments, no retaining member is provided to engage with the latch member 22e when the latch member 22e is in the unlatched position”. While ¶ 0041 describes the alternative embodiment of Figs. 7-9, the skilled artisan would appreciate that the optional nature of the second retaining members pertains to the embodiment of Figs. 1-4 as well since the latch members and the second retaining members function in essentially the same manner in both embodiments. Thus, the first resting position of the latch members 22a can be a non-engaged position.
Since the latch members 22a of Sosnovsky et al. are provided on the covers 20 (see Footnote 7), they inherently allow for the user to unlatch additional cover retainers 48 (see Figs. 1-2; ¶ 0023) and move the covers 20 to an open position while the latch members 22a remain in the second engaged position (i.e., in the position connecting the stacked containers).
In the embodiment of Figs. 1-6, Meier et al. teaches a container assembly comprising:
Plural stackable containers 34, 35 for storage and transport of goods, with each container comprising (i) left and right side walls 6, a rear side wall 7, and a front side wall 9 defining an upper opening 3, (ii) a bottom wall 40 on a bottom part 2 cooperating with the side walls 6, 7, 9 to define an interior space (see Fig. 3), (iii) a hinged cover 4 having a top surface (see Fig. 1) and being pivotally connected to the rear side wall 7 by hinges 8, and (iv) first retaining members 24 provided on the left and right side walls 6. See Figs. 1-6; ¶¶ 0033-0036.
Latch members 26 that are (i) provided on the side walls 6 within respective recesses 28, (ii) positioned parallel to the first retaining members 24, and (iii) movable (pivotal) between a first resting position (see the upper latch members 26 in Figs. 2-3) and a second engaged position (see the lower latch members 26 in Figs. 2-3). See Figs. 2-3 and 6; ¶¶ 0035, 0037.
The latch members 26 are embodied as holding grips (i.e., handles) 27 and, thus, have a dual function—securing the stacked containers 34, 35 as well as lifting and carrying the containers. See Figs. 2-3; ¶¶ 0020, 0021, 0035, 0037.
When the containers 34, 35 of Meier et al. are stacked, the latch members 26 on the lower container 35 are slid and pivoted upward and engage respective first retaining members 24 of the upper container 34 to connect the stacked containers in the second engaged position. See Figs. 2-3; ¶¶ 0035, 0037. When not used to connect stacked containers (see the upper latch members 26 in Figs. 2-3), the latch members 26 are pivoted and slid downward and engage second retaining members 25 on their respective container in the first resting position to thereby retain the latch members 26 in a stowed condition such that they are flush with their respective side walls 6 and do not protrude from the containers due to their location within the recesses 28. See Figs. 2-3 and 6; ¶¶ 0035, 0037.
In the alternative embodiment of Fig. 7 of Meier et al., the cover 4 extends to the laterally outward edges of the left and right side walls 6 such that side walls of the cover 4 are flush with the left and right side walls. See Fig. 7; ¶ 0041. Thus, in the Fig. 7 embodiment, the latch members 26 are flush with both respective container side walls 6 and respective side walls of the cover 4 when in the first resting position.
In ¶ 0011, Meier et al. also discloses that “…the cover expediently has a spacing in the vertical direction to the bottom part positioned above in the stacked state of the tool boxes…By means of the spacing it is also possible to open the cover at least somewhat in the stacked state so that it is possible to check whether the box in question within the stack contains a tool.” Thus, the cover 4 of the lower container 35 can be disposed into an open position4 when the containers 34, 35 are stacked and the latch members 26 on the lower container 35 are in the second engaged position.
Baker et al. teaches a container assembly comprising:
Plural stackable containers 20, 59 for storage and transport of goods, the containers 20, 59 including (i) side walls 34, 58 and a bottom wall 35 defining together an interior space, and (ii) a cover 21. See Figs. 1-6 and 10-18; col. 3, ll. 19-55; col. 4, ll. 1-14 and 21-67; col. 5, ll. 12-21; col. 5, l. 33 to col. 6, l. 8.
Retaining brackets 37 carrying retaining members 67 and located on opposite side walls of the containers 20, 59. See Figs. 1, 3, 7, 11-12 and 14-18; col. 3, ll. 46-49 and 55-57; col. 4, ll. 4-6 and 14-16; col. 5, ll. 1-2; col. 6, ll. 9-33.
Latch members in the form of U-shaped metal bails/handles 39 that are movable (pivotal) between a first resting position (not shown in the drawings) and a second engaged position in which the U-shaped metal bails/handles 39 engage the retaining members 67 to secure the stacked containers 20, 59 to one another. See Figs. 1, 3, 8, 9, 11-12 and 14-18; col. 3, ll. 46-49 and 57-67; col. 4, ll. 4-6 and 16-20; col. 5, ll. 2-21; col. 6, ll. 9-33.
Sands et al. teaches stackable containers with U-shaped handles that pivot between disengaged and engaged positions to selectively connect stacked containers.
Specification
The specification is objected to because:
At col. 1, l. 50, “6,371,320” should read “[6,371,320] 6,874,634”.
At col. 2, l. 14, “etc. the” should read “etc. [the] The”.
At col. 2, l. 41, “latch\handle” should read “[latch\handle] latch/handle”.
At col. 2, l. 60, “and\or” should read “[and\or] and/or”.
At col. 2, l. 65, “container. Wherein the” should read “container. [Wherein the] The”.
At col. 2, at l. 66 to col. 3, l. 3, “has a closed and an open configurations wherein the arresting member is disengaged and intermediate positions configured between the open and closed configurations wherein the arresting member is engaged” (ll. 14-17) should read “has a closed configuration, [and] an open [configurations] configuration, and intermediate positions between the closed and open configurations, wherein the arresting member is disengaged in both the closed and open configurations, and [intermediate positions configured between the open and closed configurations] wherein the arresting member is engaged in the intermediate positions.”
At col. 3, l. 52, “yet an aspect” should read “yet [an] another aspect”.
At col. 3, l. 66 to col. 4, l. 3, “has a closed and an open configurations wherein the arresting member and the friction element are disengaged and intermediate positions configured between the open and closed configurations wherein the friction element engages the arresting member” should read “has a closed configuration, [and] an open [configurations] configuration, and intermediate positions between the closed and open configurations, wherein the arresting member and the friction [element] member are disengaged in both the closed and open configurations, and [intermediate positions configured between the open and closed configurations] wherein the friction [element] member engages the arresting member in the intermediate positions.”
At col. 4, l. 28, “mechanisms, according” should read “mechanisms, and according”.
At col. 4, l. 33, “can be spaces” should read “can be [spaces] spaced”.
At col. 4, l. 36, “A the pivotable” should read “[A the] The pivotable”.
At col. 4, l. 37, “an agronomic handle” is inaccurate. Perhaps applicant intended this to read “an ergonomic handle”.
At col. 4, l. 50, “with a one or” should read “with [a] one or”.
At col. 4, l. 55, “pivotable locking member an arresting portion” is inaccurate and confusing.
At col. 4, l. 58, “wither above or below” is inaccurate.
At col. 5, l. 13, the singular phrase “a perspective view” is inconsistent with the plural phrase “FIG. 5A and FIG. 5B are”.
At col. 5, ll. 15-16, the singular phrase “a perspective view” is inconsistent with the plural phrase “FIGS. 6A to 6C illustrate”.
At col. 5, ll. 16-19, “with the handles in a resting position (6A), a workding position (6B) and a front view of the same container (6C)” is inaccurate and confusing since the phrase “a front view of the same container (6C) does not further define the positions of the handle.
At col. 5, l. 19, “yet an example” should read “yet [an] another example”.
At col. 5, l. 25, “respective” is inaccurate. Perhaps applicant intended this to read “with respect to” or “relative to”.
At col. 5, l. 28, “respective” is inaccurate. Perhaps applicant intended this to read “with respect to” or “relative to”.
At col. 5, l. 66, “from respective” should read “from the respective”.
At col. 6, l. 17, “its rear wall” should read “[its] the rear wall 106”.
At col. 6, l. 29, “the latch member 150 is…” is inaccurate because the container assembly is disclosed as having plural latch members 150 (not just one).
At col. 6, l. 39, “the retaining member 160” should read “the retaining [member 160] members 160A, 160B”.
At col. 6, l. 45, “members 160” should read “members [160] 160A, 160B”.
At col. 6, l. 48, “using a latch member 150” is inaccurate because the container assembly is disclosed as having plural latch members 150 (not just one).
At col. 6, l. 50, “members 160” should read “members [160] 160A, 160B”.
At col. 6, l. 50, “portion 142” should read “[portion] portions 142”.
At col. 6, l. 51, “container assembly 100” should read “container [assembly] assemblies 100, B”.
At col. 6, l. 55, “from rear wall” should read “from the rear wall”.
At col. 6, l. 65, “of the latch member 350 and the retaining member 360” is inaccurate because the container assembly is disclosed as having plural latch members 350 (not just one) and plural retaining members 360 (not just one).
At col. 6, ll. 66-67, “a single retaining member 360” is inaccurate because the container assembly has plural retaining members 360, i.e., one on a first side wall and another on a second, opposite side wall.
At col. 7, l. 1, “The latch member 350” is inaccurate because the container assembly is disclosed as having plural latch members 350 (not just one).
At col. 7, l. 5, “the latch member 350” is inaccurate because the container assembly is disclosed as having plural latch members 350 (not just one).
At col. 7, l. 7, “the retaining member 360” is inaccurate because the container assembly is disclosed as having plural retaining members 360 (not just one).
At col. 7, l. 18, “lack of cover” should read “the lack of a cover”.
At col. 7, l. 20, “respective side wall” should read “[respective] each side wall”.
At col. 7, l. 28, “provided with a” should read “provided with [a]”.
At col. 7, l. 30, “and 7B” should read “and [7B] 7C”.
At col. 7, l. 35, “FIG. 4, a fully “should read “FIG. 4, and a fully”.
At col. 7, l. 54, “undercut 390” should read “undercut portion 390”.
At col. 7, ll. 58-59, “configuration, however each configured for” should read “configuration[,]; however, each is configured for being”.
At col. 7, ll. 60-61, “as will be discussed herein with greater detail” because the specification does not go on to discuss a locking mechanism in greater detail.
At col. 8, l. 2, “a width providing for a side wall” is inaccurate and confusing. Further, the singular “a side wall” is inconsistent with the later recitation of “sidewalls” (l. 5) and “side walls” (l. 6).
At col. 8, ll. 6-7, “(only 402A clearly seen in the illustrations)” is inaccurate because Fig. 10B shows and labels both sidewalls 402A, 402B.
At col. 8, ll. 9-10, “the workbench 400 at the bottom” is inaccurate since the container assembly C (not the workbench 400) is at the bottom.
At col. 8, l. 11, “the retaining member 360” is inaccurate since this reference number is used to designate the retaining members in the alternate embodiment of Figs. 4-5B and 8A-8C. The retaining members in Fig. 10A are synonymous with those of the embodiment of Figs. 1A-2B.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Fig. 1A includes reference numbers 128A, 128B, 128D, 152, 154 and 156, which do not appear in the patent specification. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5), reference characters not mentioned in the description shall not appear in the drawings.
Fig. 2A includes reference numbers 123 and 154, which do not appear in the patent specification. See 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5).
Fig. 2B includes reference numbers 154 and 156, which do not appear in the patent specification. See 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5).
Fig. 4 includes reference numbers 352, 354 and 356, which do not appear in the patent specification. See 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5).
Fig. 5A includes reference numbers 352, 354 and 356, which do not appear in the patent specification. See 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5).
Fig. 5B includes reference numbers 352, 354 and 356, which do not appear in the patent specification. See 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5).
Fig. 6A includes reference numbers 422 and 442, which do not appear in the patent specification. See 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5).
Fig. 6B includes reference number 442, which does not appear in the patent specification. See 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5).
Fig. 6C includes reference numbers 422 and 442, which do not appear in the patent specification. See 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5).
Fig. 7A includes reference characters S, T and reference numbers 520, 540 and 550, which do not appear in the patent specification. See 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5).
In Fig. 7B, it appears that reference number 45 should be changed to 450.
Fig. 7C includes reference number 550, which does not appear in the patent specification. See 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5).
Reference number 300 is used in Figs. 4-5B and 8A-8C to designate an embodiment of a container assembly having latch members in the form of generally U-shaped flaps/plates, and reference number 300 is used in Fig. 10A to designate an alternative embodiment of an assembly that includes a work bench. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4), the same reference character must never be used to designate different parts.
Reference number 400 is used in Figs. 6A-7C to designate a container without a cover (i.e., a crate), and reference number 400 is used in Figs. 10A-10C to designate a work bench. See 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4).
In Fig. 10A, the use of reference number 360 is inaccurate since this reference number is used to designate the retaining members in the alternate embodiment of Figs. 4-5B and 8A-8C. The retaining members in Fig. 10A are synonymous with those of the embodiment of Figs. 1A-2B.
Fig. 10B includes reference number 402B, which does not appear in the patent specification. See 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5).
The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Amendments in Reissue Applications
Applicant is notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification, claims or drawings must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)-(g).
Failure to fully comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)-(g) will generally result in a notification to applicant that an amendment before final rejection is not completely responsive. Such an amendment after final rejection will not be entered.
Disclosure Obligations
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which the patent for which reissue is sought is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation. Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation. These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Filing and Contact Information
All correspondence relating to this reissue application should be directed:
By Patent Center5: Registered users may submit via the Patent Center at: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
By Mail6 to: Commissioner for Patents
United States Patent & Trademark Office
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
By FAX to: (571) 273-8300
By hand: Customer Service Window
Knox Building
501 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter English whose telephone number is (571)272-6671. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (8:00 am - 6:00 pm EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eileen Lillis, can be reached at 571-272-6928.
/PETER C ENGLISH/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
Conferees:/WILLIAM C DOERRLER/ Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
/EILEEN D LILLIS/SPRS, Art Unit 3993
1 See the amendment and arguments filed on August 10, 2021.
2 See the amendment filed on October 31, 2019.
3 Figs. 1-3 illustrate the latch members 22a as being hinged to upper portions of the left and right side walls 28, 32 immediately adjacent to outer side walls of the respective cover 20. However, ¶ 0024 discloses that “the latch member 22a may be connected to other parts of the container 12a or 12b, such as the cover 20…the latch member 22a may be pivotably connected to the cover 20…” Thus, the latch members 22a may instead be hinged to the outer side walls of the respective covers 20.
4 A partially open position constitutes an open position as broadly claimed.
5 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).
6 Mail Stop REISSUE should only be used for the initial filing of reissue applications, and should not be used for any subsequently filed correspondence in reissue applications. See MPEP 1410.
Prosecution Insights