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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/23/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 19, 24-26 and 30-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the top position" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites “wherein the recess extends from the top position of the lid and through an intersecting pair of first reinforcement ribs”, this is unclear. If the recess extends all the way through the intersecting first reinforcement ribs that would create a through hole or an opening and no longer merely a recess. Additionally, it is unclear if the applicant means the top portion/top wall of the lid or if the lid is in a particular orientation/position.
Claim 24 recites “wherein a bottom of the plurality of first reinforcement ribs comprises a void corresponding to a stud cradle of a mold”, this is unclear. Does the applicant mean there is a void within each of the lower end/bottom of the plurality of first reinforcement ribs? Is this the gaps between each of the first reinforcement ribs? If the ribs are hollow (having a void), are they still able to provide the structure to reinforce the lid? This is unclear.
Claims 25-26 recite “void” and “the void corresponding to the stud cradle of the mold” as stated above it is unclear what is being claimed.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the top position" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 30 recites “a recess extending from the top position of the lid and through an intersecting pair of first reinforcement ribs”, this is unclear. If the recess extends all the way through the intersecting first reinforcement ribs that would create a through hole or an opening and no longer merely a recess. Additionally, it is unclear if the applicant means the top portion/top wall of the lid or if the lid is in a particular orientation/position.
Claim 32 recites “a bottom of the plurality of first reinforcement ribs comprises a void extending from the bottom of the plurality of first reinforcement ribs”, this is unclear. Does the void extend into the ribs? Is this the area below the rib? Area between the ribs? Is this a recess/depression in the bottom of each of the plurality of ribs? It is unclear.
Claim 33 recites “such that the void is positioned below the metal reinforcement bar”, as stated above it is unclear what would meet the limitation for the void as claimed.
Claims not specifically mentioned are included due to their dependencies.
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 13-18, 20-23 and 27-30 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 6-7, 11 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,388,241 B2 in view of Dang US 2017/0260712 A1. The claims of the patent anticipate the claims of the application in various combinations except for the limitations related to a ledge being formed in the interior of the foldable enclosure for holding the lid, the first reinforcement ribs extending within the interior of the foldable enclosure, the polypropylene material comprising 15-40% glass fiber and the ribs extending from the front end to the rear end and from the first side to the second side. Dang teaches a ledge (22 shoulder, Fig. 3A) being formed in the interior of the enclosure (16 utility vault) for holding the lid (paragraph [0056]), a lid (2 lid) with reinforcing ribs (Figs. 1 and 2A) that extending from the front end to the rear end and from the first side to the second side and also extending within the interior foldable enclosure when the sides of the lid are received at the ledge (the reinforcing ribs project downward from the top wall of the lid and when the lid is placed onto the enclosure they extend downwardly into the interior of the enclosure). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the ledge in the interior and ribs as taught by Dang as doing so is well known in the art and would yield predictable results. Additionally, the ledge and ribs as taught by Dang help prevent lateral movement of between the lid and container and a more robust reinforced lid. The claims of patent 12,388,241 discloses substantially all the limitations of the claim(s) except for the glass-fiber reinforced thermoplastic having 15-40% glass fiber. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to having a polypropylene (thermoplastic) with 15-40% glass fiber, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lauren Kmet whose telephone number is (313)446-4834. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571) 272-4561. 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.
/L KMET/Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/Anthony D Stashick/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights