www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and TrademarkOffice
`Address; COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`16/700,095
`
`CAR
`
`12/02/2019
`
`Ricky Dean Shock
`
`67846-008PUS4
`
`3983
`
`.Sk
`
`SPC.
`
`CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
`400 WEST MAPLE ROAD
`SUITE 350
`BIRMINGHAM,MI48009
`
`ARNETT, NICOLAS ALLEN
`
`3753
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`09/30/2020
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`
`cgolaw @ yahoo.com
`ptodocket @cgolaw.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-20 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) ___ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`CC) Claim(s)
`is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected.
`S)
`) O Claim(s)___is/are objected to.
`C) Claim(s
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`)
`S)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) )
`
`Application Papers
`10) The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11) The drawing(s)filed on 12/2/19 is/are: a)M) accepted or b)() objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)(1) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d)or (f).
`Certified copies:
`cc) None ofthe:
`b)LJ Some**
`a)L) All
`1.2 Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.2 Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.4) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`2)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date 12/2/19 (x2).
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) (J Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`(Qj Other:
`
`4)
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20200925-A
`
`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`16/700,095
`Shock, Ricky Dean
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF) StatusExaminer
`NICOLAS A ARNETT
`3753
`Yes
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEofthis communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133}.
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s) filed on 02 December 2019.
`CO) A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`
`2a)(J This action is FINAL. 2b))This action is non-final.
`3) An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4\(Z Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/700,095
`Art Unit: 3753
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AlA or AIA Status
`
`1.
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the
`
`first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`2.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
`
`Claim Interpretation
`
`(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. — An element ina claim for a combination may be expressed as
`a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts
`in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material,
`or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
`
`The following is a quotation of pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
`
`An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a
`specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim
`shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the
`specification and equivalents thereof.
`
`3.
`
`The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using
`
`the plain meaning of the claim languagein light of the specification as it would be understood
`
`by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element
`
`(also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the
`
`specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
`
`As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection |, claim limitations that meet the following
`
`three-prongtest will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112,sixth
`
`paragraph:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/700,095
`Art Unit: 3753
`
`Page 3
`
`(A)
`
`the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for
`
`“means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term
`
`having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
`
`(B)
`
`the term “means”or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional
`
`language,typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”)
`
`or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
`
`(C)
`
`the term “means”or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient
`
`structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
`
`Use of the word “means”(or “step”) in a claim with functional languagecreatesa
`
`rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C.
`
`112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is
`
`interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when
`
`the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited
`
`function.
`
`Absence of the word “means”(or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption
`
`that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35
`
`U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under
`
`35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation
`
`recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the
`
`recited function.
`
`Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means”(or “step”) are being
`
`interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/700,095
`Art Unit: 3753
`
`Page 4
`
`indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the
`
`word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C.
`
`112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
`
`Double Patenting
`
`4.
`
`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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/700,095
`Art Unit: 3753
`
`Page 5
`
`See MPEP § 2146et 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used.
`
`Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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 meetsall requirements is auto-
`
`processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal
`
` Disclaimers, refer to www.
`
`5.
`
`Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being
`
`unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,494,251 (the ‘251 patent) in view of US
`
`Patent Application Publication 2007/0181212 to Fell (Fell). Claims 1-20 recited all of the same
`
`limitations as claims 1-20 of the ‘251 patent except for a container having two opposedside
`
`walls connected to two opposed end walls. Fell teaches a distribution station including a
`
`container having two opposed side walls connected to two opposed end walls (shown in Figs. 1-
`
`4).
`
`It would have been obvious to one ofordinaryskill in the art before the effective filing date
`
`of the claimed invention to have used a mobile trailer having a container formed by two
`
`opposed side walls connected to two opposed end walls as taught by Fell in the system of the
`
`‘251 patent. Such a change requires only the substitution of one mobile trailer with another
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/700,095
`Art Unit: 3753
`
`Page 6
`
`mobile trailer for performing the same function. Further, using a mobile trailer having sidewalls
`
`and end walls as disclosed by Fell protects the distribution equipment during transport.
`
`Conclusion
`
`6.
`
`The prior art made of record and notrelied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
`
`disclosure. The cited documentsdisclose distribution stations which are related to applicant’s
`
`disclosure and claimed invention.
`
`7.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to NICOLAS A ARNETT whosetelephone number is (571)270-5062.
`
`The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 8:00-5:00; F 12:00-4:00.
`
`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, Mary EMcManmon can be reached on 571-272-6007. The fax phone number for
`
`the organization wherethis application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
`
`Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent
`
`Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications
`
`may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished
`
`applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/700,095
`Art Unit: 3753
`
`Page 7
`
`system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access
`
`to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-
`
`free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to
`
`the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA)or 571-272-1000.
`
`/NICOLAS A ARNETT/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
`September 25, 2020
`
`

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.

We are unable to display this document.

PTO Denying Access

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket