Reply to Office Action of October 23, 2024
`
`-7-
`
`Remarks
`
`Runway Blue, LLC
`Application No. 18/194,075
`
`Reconsideration of this Application is respectfully requested.
`
`Upon entry of the foregoing amendment, claims 1-12, 14—22 and 24—28, and 30 are pending
`
`in the application, with claims 1, 21, and 27 being the independentclaims. Claims 1, 17—18, 21, and
`
`27 are amended. Claims 13, 23, and 29 are canceled without prejudice to or disclaimer of the
`
`subject matter therein. These changes introduce no new matter, and their entry is respectfully
`
`requested.
`
`Based on the above amendments and the following remarks, Applicant respectfully requests
`
`that the Examiner reconsiderall outstanding objections and rejections and that they be withdrawn.
`
`I. Allowable Subject Matter
`
`Applicant thanks the Examinerfor indicating that claims 13 and 23 would be allowable if
`
`rewritten in independent form. Applicant has donethis by incorporating the subject matter of claim
`
`13 into independent claim 1, and by incorporating the subject matter of claim 23 into independent
`
`claim 21.
`
`II. Objections to the Claims
`
`Claims 17-18 are objected to for informalities. Without acquiescing to the propriety of the
`
`objections and solely to expedite the claims towards allowance, claims 17—18 have been amendedto
`
`obviate the objections.
`
`Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the objections be withdrawn and the
`
`claims be allowed.
`
`III. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102
`
`Claims 1, 3-6, 8-13, 15—16, 19-22, and 24-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
`
`allegedly being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 8,689,989 to Lane (“Lane”).
`
`Applicant notes that the Office identifies claim 13 as rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (Office
`
`Action, p. 2), the Office identifies claim 13 as also containing allowable subject matter (Office
`
`Action, p. 10), and the Office does not identify claim 14 as being rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102
`
`(Office Action, p. 2.) When explaining the rejection, the Office lists claim 13 as rejected, and then
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 4370.2030001
`
`

`

`Reply to Office Action of October 23, 2024
`
`-8-
`
`Runway Blue, LLC
`Application No. 18/194,075
`
`provides the text of claim 14. Applicant interprets this Office Action as rejecting claim 14 under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102 and not claim 13. Applicant further interprets the subject matter of claim 13 as
`
`allowable, as provided on page 10 of the Office Action.
`
`A. Independent claim 1
`
`Independent claim 1 is rejected as anticipated by Lane. Without acquiescing to the propriety
`
`of the rejection, and solely to expedite prosecution, claim 1 has been amendedto recite the subject
`
`matter from previously presented claim 13. Amendedclaim 1 recites, in part, “wherein when the
`
`handle movesfrom the first handle position to the second handle position, a portion of the handle
`
`pushesthe latching memberto the unlatched position.” The Office Action acknowledged that
`
`previously presented claim 13 was allowable because “Lanefails to teach when the handle moves
`
`from the first handle position to the second handle position, a portion of the handle pushes the
`
`latching memberto the unlatched position.” (Office Action, pp. 10-11.)
`
`Lanefails to anticipate amended claim 1 at least because it does not disclose “when the
`
`handle movesfrom the first handle position to the second handle position, a portion of the handle
`
`pushesthe latching memberto the unlatched position,” as recited in amended claim 1.
`
`Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the Office withdraw the § 102 rejection of
`
`claim 1 and claims depending therefrom.
`
`B.
`
`Independent claim 21
`
`Independent claim 21 is rejected as anticipated by Lane. Without acquiescing to the
`
`propriety of the rejection, and solely to expedite prosecution, claim 21 has been amendedto recite
`
`the subject matter from previously presented claim 23. Amended claim 21 recites, in part, “wherein
`
`the first handle rangeis at least 90 degrees.” The Office Action acknowledged that previously
`
`presented claim 23 was allowable at least because “Lanefails to teach the first handle range being at
`
`least 90 degrees.” (Office Action, p. 11.)
`
`Lanefails to anticipate amended claim 21 becauseit does not disclose “the first handle range
`
`is at least 90 degrees,” as recited in amendedclaim 21.
`
`Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the Office withdraw the § 102 rejection of
`
`claim 21 and claims depending therefrom.
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 4370.2030001
`
`

`

`Reply to Office Action of October 23, 2024
`
`-9-
`
`Runway Blue, LLC
`Application No. 18/194,075
`
`C.
`
`Independent claim 27
`
`Independent claim 27 is rejected as anticipated by Lane. (Office Action, pp. 4 and 6-7.)
`
`Without acquiescing to the propriety of the rejection, and solely to expedite prosecution, claim 27
`
`has been amendedto recite subject matter similar to previously presented claim 29. Amended
`
`claims 27 recites “wherein rotating the handle in the first rotational direction comprisesrotating the
`
`handle from a horizontal position to a declined position relative to a vertical axis of the container.”
`
`The Office Action rejected claim 29 as anticipated by Lane, alleging that “the claimed
`
`limitation is met if the container of Lane 1s rotated 90 degrees such that the vertical axis is
`
`horizontal,” and noting that this claim “would be allowable in independent form if this issue is
`
`corrected.” (Office Action, p. 7.) While Applicant respectfully disagrees, the claim has been
`
`amendedto specify that “rotating the handle from a horizontal position to a declined position”is
`
`“relative to a vertical axis of the container.” Support for this amendmentis foundat least in
`
`paragraph [0076] and FIGS. 10-12.
`
`Lanefails to anticipate amended claim 21 at least because it does not disclose “wherein
`
`rotating the handle in the first rotational direction comprises rotating the handle from a horizontal
`
`position to a declined position relative to a vertical axis of the container” as recited in amended
`
`claim 27.
`
`Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the Office withdraw the § 102 rejection of
`
`claim 27 and claims depending therefrom.
`
`IV. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Lane in view
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,913,552 to Elsaden ef a/. Claims 2 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Lane in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,834,233 to Luhrsef al.
`
`Each of these claims dependsdirectly or indirectly from independent claim 1 and each of
`
`these claimsis allowable for at least the same reasons as independentclaim 1. Applicant
`
`respectfully asks the Office to withdraw the § 103 rejections of claims 2, 7, and 17-18.
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 4370.2030001
`
`

`

`Reply to Office Action of October 23, 2024
`
`- 10-
`
`Runway Blue, LLC
`Application No. 18/194,075
`
`Conclusion
`
`All of the stated grounds of objection and rejection have been properly traversed,
`
`accommodated, or rendered moot. Applicant therefore respectfully requests that the Examiner
`
`reconsiderall presently outstanding objections and rejections and that they be withdrawn. Applicant
`
`believes that a full and complete reply has been made to the outstanding Office Action and, as such,
`
`the present application is in condition for allowance. If the Examiner believes, for any reason, that
`
`personal communication will expedite prosecution of this application, the Examineris invited to
`
`telephone the undersigned at the numberprovided.
`
`Promptand favorable consideration of this Amendment and Reply is respectfully requested.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`
`/Daniel A. Gajewski #64,515/
`
`Daniel A. Gajewski
`Attorney for Applicant
`Registration No. 64,515
`
`Date: 2025-01-21
`
`1101 K Street, NW, 10" Floor
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`Main: 202-371-2600
`Direct: 202-772-8774
`
`23758294.2
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 4370.2030001
`
`