DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/17/2026 in response to Office Action 5/20/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive for at least the following reason:
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Applicant argues that neither primary prior art Willis nor secondary prior art Robbins teaches the amended linear projection contact area but does point out that Robbins has a rectangular projection (pages 11 and 13). Willis is round (page 11) and Robbins does not have an equivalent outer wall so the 103 fails to have a properly placed projection for reading onto Willis, and Robbins is silent on any inset step of the body for this contact area to occur (page 13). Examiner points out rectangles have linear sides, and Robbins has a proper outer wall, and is not silent on an inset because that’s how the projection attaches. Regardless, the Robbins arguments are piecemeal. Please see a detailed analysis in the rejection below.
Applicant argues the below once again, this time saying that a “right angle” was contemplated and disclosed because an “L-shape” was disclosed and the drawing is clear (page 16). Examiner reiterates an L-shape is not a right angle and the drawings cannot be relied upon for an exact measurement (right angle means 90 degrees exactly). The point is not what a POSITA would understand, it’s about what is explicitly disclosed, which a “right angle” is not.
Applicant states “Whether or not a drawing is "to scale" has no bearing on the relative orientation of component parts illustrated” (page 15 lines 6-7). However, MPEP 2125 II states “proportions of features in a drawing are not evidence of actual proportions when drawings are not to scale” explaining explicitly that “it is well established that patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue”. Examiner points out “L-shape” does not actually mean right angle, as explained in the analysis in the rejection below in claims 1 and 17, and Applicant’s drawings are explicitly not to scale [0029]. Also, Applicant has not addressed the rejection of the right angle (beyond the 35 USC 112a), so the argument is moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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.
Claims 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the new matter requirement. “the projection forms a right angle with the outer wall” is new matter and must be canceled. A right angle would mean exactly and only 90 degrees. Since the drawings are explicitly “not to be considered as drawn to scale” [0029] and the specification does not explicitly disclose 90 degrees, nor the term “right angle” or anything that would support the exact value, the term “right angle” is new matter. In other words, while the projection 382/586 in Applicant Fig 5B may appear to be a right angle, and a POSITA may in fact create a right angle upon seeing the drawing, the examiner points out that appearances alone are not how drawings are interpreted for specific values according to the MPEP 2125 II.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 9, 11-12, 17-20 and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over US Pat 4544073 issued to Willis (hereinafter “Willis”) in view of US Pat 5547109 issued to Robbins (hereinafter “Robbins”) in view of US Pub 20020008116 by Sorenson (hereinafter “Sorenson”) in further view of KR 20180107668 by Kong Tae Kwong (hereinafter “Kwong”).
Regarding claim 1, Willis teaches a container (Fig 1, container) comprising:
a base (see examiner annotated Willis Figures 2 and 6, hereinafter “EAFW26”; EAFW26 base) including, a body portion (EAFW26 body portion) the body portion including a stepped inset in a shoulder of the body portion (EAFW26 stepped inset of body in shoulder shown as dashed L shape), the stepped inset is L-shaped and includes a horizontal portion and a vertical portion extending from the horizontal portion (examiner notes “L-shape” is not a precise shape under broadest reasonable interpretation (MPEP 2173.01 I); for example since the Applicant seems to intend a precise shape in this font, a human hand can form an L shape with forefinger and thumb even though it has a curved inner corner, curved ends, and the outer corner is nonexistent, and the two legs also do not have to be perfectly right angle intersecting each other. In other words, there are many fonts (see Microsoft Word) that fall under the L shape but are indeed all L’s.
EAFW26 the annotated two dashed lines (shown as a more precise L simply for viewer ease) of the stepped inset shows the stepped inset’s defining region to be L-shaped and having a vertical portion of the L and a horizontal portion of the L extending therefrom (e.g. an L in this font mirrored along a vertical axis that intersects the outermost point of the horizontal leg of the L)), and
a neck portion (EAFW26 neck portion), the neck portion defining an open end and a sidewall (EAFW26 neck sidewall defines an open end of the container);
a cover having a top surface, the cover configured to engage the sidewall of the neck portion to seal the open end of the neck portion (EAFW26 cover seals by engaging the neck sidewall), the cover configured to be removable from the container (EAFW26 cover is removable); and
a cap (EAFW26 cap) configured to engage a portion of the base (EAFW26 the cap engages the base), the cap separate from the cover (EAFW26 the cap shown separate from the cover),
the cap including,
a housing defining an open cavity in the cap (EAFW26 open cavity is defined by a cap housing around it), the neck portion extending into the open cavity (EAFW26 the neck portion extends into the open cavity),
the housing including an outer wall (EAFW26 outer wall) having an open edge configured to engage the body portion (EAFW26 open edge of outer wall shown sharing a black line, so engages body portion there), the open edge including a projection that extends inwardly towards the open cavity, the projection including a bottom surface configured to sit and an innermost end configured to abut the vertical portion of the stepped inset to engage the stepped inset of the body portion in a snap fit (EAFW26 projection extends perpendicularly inward from the outer wall along a regular L shape’s horizontal leg of this font, engaging the stepped inset in a snap fit, wherein a bottom surface of the projection is shown to sit on the inset while an innermost endpoint abuts the inset’s vertical portion), the projection extending inwardly from a bottom portion of the outer wall (EAFW26 projection extends inwardly from a bottom portion of the outer wall), the projection and the stepped inset are shaped to mirror each other (L dash lines shown as mirrors of each other, as cited above),
PNG
media_image1.png
678
775
media_image1.png
Greyscale
But Willis does not explicitly teach that the projection bottom surface particularly shaped to sit on the stepped inset’s horizontal portion, nor be continuous forming a single bottom surface horizontally with the outer wall it projects from.
Robbins, however, discloses a similar snap fit projection (Fig 6, 44) of a lid (Figs 2 & 6, a lid is skin wall 28 of the cap 16) on a container comprising:
the projection including a bottom surface, the projection extending from a bottom portion of the outer wall such that the bottom surface of the projection and a bottom surface of the outer wall are a single continuous surface extending in a horizontal direction (see examiner annotated Robbins Figure 6, hereinafter “EAFR6”; EAFR6 shows all this, including an analogous outer wall),
wherein the vertical portion of the stepped inset of the body portion and the innermost end of the projection of the cap both extend linearly along an entire contact area between the vertical portion and the innermost end (Fig 6, 44 is “rectangular bead 44” and is shown with its innermost end engaging an entire contact area between itself and a portion of the body, wherein the contact area is necessarily linear because the rectangular bead means it has linear sides, meaning the portion of the body is vertical too. Said engaging end is innermost because it’s the bead’s only “end”, the other side being the outer wall it’s on).
PNG
media_image2.png
370
720
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the projection of Willis to have its bottom surface form a single continuous bottom surface with the bottom surface of the outer wall as taught by Robbins, since it has been held that the configuration/shape of the claimed container element (e.g. lid projection/snap fit) was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container element was significant. MPEP 2144.04 IV-B. Also, similarly to a POSITA, it is no more than a simple substitution of one snap-fit shape (round for vertical/linear/rectangular) for another that is known in the art for snap fitting and would only produce the predictable results of a snap fit. MPEP 2143 I-B. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation. None of these modifications to the snap fit shapes of lid projection and container inset interfere with one another’s prior art disclosure primary purpose of simply doing snap fit.
Examiner notes that the resultant combination yields the claimed invention including “the projection including a bottom surface configured to sit on the horizontal portion of the stepped inset (since the projection of Willis is moved down along the stepped inset of Willis by the modification of shape of Robbins to Willis’ projection horizontally aligning and making continuous the two bottom surfaces respectively each of Willis’ projection and outer wall, Willis’ projection bottom surface as modified then allows it to sit on the (dashed line) horizontal portion of the L-shape of Willis’ inset), the projection extending inwardly from a bottom portion of the outer wall such that the bottom surface of the projection and a bottom surface of the outer wall are a single continuous surface extending in a horizontal direction (since Willis’ projection already projects inwardly, Robbins simply makes the projection extend from a bottom portion of Willis’ outer wall, and the two bottom surfaces a single continuous bottom surface extending horizontally)”.
But Willis/Robbins does not explicitly teach a storage compartment formed by a partition on top of the cap that is accessed by a hinged lid.
Sorenson, however, teaches a similar cap with separate storage compartment with hinged lid (Fig 4, 40 and 45) on a container base (Fig 1, 5) comprising:
a hinged lid (EAFS5 hinged lid) movable between an open position (EAFS5 shown movable) providing access to the open cavity (EAFS5 shows open position) and a closed position (EAFS5 necessarily shows closed position) sealing the open cavity (Abstract, medicine storage necessarily is sealed by necessary engagement of the lip, EAFS5), the hinged lid including
a lip projecting away from an interior surface of the hinged lid and towards the base in the closed position (EAFS5 lip shown projects downward away from an interior surface and towards base 5, Fig 1),
the hinged lid including a flange radially outward of the lip (EAFS5 flange, shown radially outward of the lip),
the lip perpendicular to the interior surface (EAFS5 lip perpendicular) of the hinged lid and extending fully around a perimeter of the interior surface of the hinged lid (EAFS5 lip extends fully around a perimeter of the interior surface) to define a recess on the interior surface of the hinged lid (a recess is shown defined by lip on the interior surface of the hinged lid),
the flange extending fully around the perimeter of the interior surface of the hinged lid (EAFS5 flange shown extends fully around the perimeter of the interior surface),
the lip contacting an interior surface of the housing when the hinged lid is in the closed position (EAFS5 shows and [0015] necessarily confirms lip engagement providing a protective enclosure of the substance within the first compartment) and the flange contacting the housing when the hinged lid is in the closed position (EAFS5 shows the flange contacts the housing when closed), and
a partition (EAFS5 partition) defining a first compartment (EAFS5 first compartment) in the open cavity of the cap (is in the open cavity), the hinged lid moving between the open position and the closed position so as to provide access to the first compartment (EAFS5 shows access in open position, having moved from a closed position),
the partition having a first compartment surface (EAFS5 partition top surface inside first compartment) and a second compartment surface opposite the first compartment surface (EAFS5 partition bottom surface inside second compartment, opposite first) such that the second compartment surface is configured to be adjacent the top surface of a cover when the cap is engaged to the portion of the base (EAFS5 shows second compartment surface capable of being adjacent or proximate the top surface of a cover 20 (e.g. Fig 1)).
(wherein Sorenson further teaches related elements in light of dependent claims:
EAFS5 shows monolithic cross-section directly connecting;
EAFS5 hinge is capable of being a “living hinge” since it is molded [0043], wherein a living hinge is a middle piece of material between two other usually thicker pieces, so that once all pieces are molded as one piece, the middle piece becomes a hinge from stress concentration physically caused by being a thinner area than the two pieces the middle piece directly connects, and will allow hinging when one of the other two pieces is a free end)
PNG
media_image3.png
762
570
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cap of Willis with a storage compartment as taught by Sorenson in order to beneficially be able to store medicinal or supplementation necessities such as medicine, vitamins or antibiotics for one’s health for use with liquid such as water (Sorenson, Abstract) in the container, advantageously increasing convenience and ease of accessibility during travel and for weight and space saving. Such a modification adding this partition and compartments to an already covered bottle like Willis is shown as obvious to a POSITA by existence in Sorenson.
But Willis/Robbins/Sorenson does not explicitly teach the hinged lid including a seal at an intersection of the lip and the flange.
Kwong, however, teaches a lid (Figs 3 & 5, cover 110) seal at an intersection of a lip and a flange (see examiner annotated Kwong Figure 5; hereinafter “EAFK5”; EAFK5, a lid seal is packing member 116, having “elastic force” page 5 para third to last (of NPL 10/23/2024)).
PNG
media_image4.png
363
410
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cap of Willis/Robbins/Sorenson with a seal in an intersection as taught by Kwong in the intersection of Sorenson’s lip and flange, in order to beneficially upgrade/reinforce the intersection/joint’s seal to better insulate versus a wider variety of environmental degradation effects for a wider variety of contents (Kwong, page 5 para last, “The airtightness of the accommodating space 141”, Fig 2).
Regarding claim 2, Willis further teaches at least a portion of the body portion extends into the open cavity (EAFW26 at least one portion of the body that extends into the open cavity is shoulder).
Regarding claim 9, Willis/Robbins/Sorenson/Kwong further teaches the body portion that includes a groove, and the open edge of the cap configured to engage the groove so as to create a snap fit (Willis/Robbins, since the continuous single bottom surface modification includes the open edge (as seen in the annotated figures and explained), the open edge necessarily can engage a snap fit groove that at least includes a groove directly pointed to, EAFW26. Since that’s been moved down for the bottom surface.). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 11, Willis/Robbins/Sorenson/Kwong further teaches the hinged lid (EAFS5 hinged lid) is monolithically formed (EAFS5 shows monolithic cross-section directly connecting) with the housing (EAFS5 housing). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 12, Willis/Robbins/Sorenson/Kwong further teaches the hinged lid (EAFS5 hinged lid) includes a living hinge (EAFS5 hinge is capable of being a “living hinge” since it is molded [0043]). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 17, Willis teaches a cap (EAFW26 cap) for a container (Fig 1, container), the cap comprising:
a housing defining a cavity (EAFW26 open cavity is defined by a cap housing around it)
the housing including an outer wall (EAFW26 outer wall) having an open edge configured to engage a body portion of the container (EAFW26 open edge of outer wall shown sharing a black line, so engages body portion there), the body portion including a stepped inset in a shoulder of the body portion (EAFW26 stepped inset of body in shoulder shown as dashed L shape), the stepped inset is L-shaped and includes a horizontal portion and a vertical portion extending from the horizontal portion (examiner notes “L-shape” is not a precise shape under broadest reasonable interpretation (MPEP 2173.01 I); for example since the Applicant seems to intend a precise shape in this font, a human hand can form an L shape with forefinger and thumb even though it has a curved inner corner, curved ends, and the outer corner is nonexistent, and the two legs also do not have to be perfectly right angle intersecting each other. In other words, there are many fonts (see Microsoft Word) that fall under the L shape but are indeed all L’s.
EAFW26 the annotated two dashed lines (shown as a more precise L simply for viewer ease) of the stepped inset shows the stepped inset’s defining region to be L-shaped and having a vertical portion of the L and a horizontal portion of the L extending therefrom (e.g. an L in this font mirrored along a vertical axis that intersects the outermost point of the horizontal leg of the L))
the open edge including a projection that extends inwardly towards the cavity, the projection including a bottom surface configured to sit and an innermost end configured to abut the vertical portion of the stepped inset to engage the stepped inset of the body portion in a snap fit (EAFW26 projection extends perpendicularly inward from the outer wall along a regular L shape’s horizontal leg of this font, engaging the stepped inset in a snap fit, wherein a bottom surface of the projection is shown to sit on the inset while an innermost endpoint abuts the inset’s vertical portion), the projection extending inwardly from a bottom portion of the outer wall (EAFW26 projection extends inwardly from a bottom portion of the outer wall), the projection and the stepped inset are shaped to mirror each other (L dash lines shown as mirrors of each other, as cited above),
a removable cover of the neck portion of the container (EAFW26 cover seals by engaging the neck sidewall, and is removable),
But Willis does not explicitly teach that the projection bottom surface particularly shaped to sit on the stepped inset’s horizontal portion, nor be continuous forming a single bottom surface horizontally with the outer wall it projects from.
Robbins, however, discloses a similar snap fit projection (Fig 6, 44) of a lid (Figs 2 & 6, a lid is skin wall 28 of the cap 16) on a container comprising:
the projection including a bottom surface, the projection extending from a bottom portion of the outer wall such that the bottom surface of the projection and a bottom surface of the outer wall are a single continuous surface extending in a horizontal direction (see examiner annotated Robbins Figure 6, hereinafter “EAFR6”; EAFR6 shows all this, including an analogous outer wall),
wherein the vertical portion of the stepped inset of the body portion and the innermost end of the projection of the cap both extend linearly along an entire contact area between the vertical portion and the innermost end (Fig 6, 44 is “rectangular bead 44” and is shown with its innermost end engaging an entire contact area between itself and a portion of the body, wherein the contact area is necessarily linear because the rectangular bead means it has linear sides, meaning the portion of the body is vertical too. Said engaging end is innermost because it’s the bead’s only “end”, the other side being the outer wall it’s on).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the projection of Willis to have its bottom surface form a single continuous bottom surface with the bottom surface of the outer wall as taught by Robbins, since it has been held that the configuration/shape of the claimed container element (e.g. lid projection/snap fit) was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. MPEP 2144.04 IV-B. Also, similarly to a POSITA, it is no more than a simple substitution of one snap-fit shape (round for vertical/linear/rectangular) for another that is known in the art for snap fitting and would only produce the predictable results of a snap fit. MPEP 2143 I-B. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation. None of these modifications to the snap fit shapes of lid projection and container inset interfere with one another’s prior art disclosure primary purpose of simply doing snap fit.
Examiner notes that the resultant combination yields the claimed invention including “the projection including a bottom surface configured to sit on the horizontal portion of the stepped inset (since the projection of Willis is moved down along the stepped inset of Willis by the modification of shape of Robbins to Willis’ projection horizontally aligning and making continuous the two bottom surfaces respectively each of Willis’ projection and outer wall, Willis’ projection bottom surface as modified then allows it to sit on the (dashed line) horizontal portion of the L-shape of Willis’ inset), the projection extending inwardly from a bottom portion of the outer wall such that the bottom surface of the projection and a bottom surface of the outer wall are a single continuous surface extending in a horizontal direction (since Willis’ projection already projects inwardly, Robbins simply makes the projection extend from a bottom portion of Willis’ outer wall, and the two bottom surfaces a single continuous bottom surface extending horizontally)”.
But Willis/Robbins does not explicitly teach a storage compartment formed by a partition on top of the cap that is accessed by a hinged lid.
Sorenson, however, teaches a similar cap with separate storage compartment with hinged lid (Fig 4, 40 and 45) on a container base (Fig 1, 5) comprising:
a partition (EAFS5 partition) within the cavity and dividing the cavity into a first compartment (EAFS5 first compartment) and cavity second compartment (EAFS5 second compartment),
the partition having a first compartment surface (EAFS5 partition top surface inside first compartment) and a second compartment surface opposite the first compartment surface (EAFS5 partition bottom surface inside second compartment) such that the second compartment surface is configured to be adjacent the top surface of a cover when the cap is engaged to the body portion (EAFS5 shows second compartment surface capable of being adjacent or proximate the top surface of a cover 20 (e.g. Fig 1)),
a hinged lid (EAFS5 hinged lid capable of engaging a housing) configured to engage a housing, the hinged lid being movable between an open position (EAFS5 shown movable) providing access to the first compartment (EAFS5 shows open position access to first compartment) and a closed position (EAFS5 necessarily shows closed position) sealing the first compartment (Abstract, medicine storage first compartment necessarily is sealed at least by necessary engagement of the lip, EAFS5), the hinged lid including
a lip projecting away from an interior surface of the hinged lid and towards the partition in the closed position (EAFS5 lip shown projects downward away from an interior surface and towards 5),
the hinged lid including a flange radially outward of the lip (EAFS5 flange),
the lip perpendicular to the interior surface (EAFS5 lip perpendicular) of the hinged lid and extending fully around a perimeter of the interior surface of the hinged lid (EAFS5 lip extends fully around a perimeter of the interior surface) to define a recess on the interior surface of the hinged lid (a recess is shown defined by lip on the interior surface of the hinged lid),
the flange extending fully around the perimeter of the interior surface of the hinged lid (EAFS5 flange shown extends fully around the perimeter of the interior surface),
the lip contacting an interior surface of the housing when the hinged lid is in the closed position (EAFS5 shows and [0015] necessarily confirms lip engagement providing a protective enclosure of the substance within the first compartment) and the flange contacting the housing when the hinged lid is in the closed position (EAFS5 shows the flange contacts the housing when closed),
(wherein Sorenson further teaches related elements in light of the dependent claims:
EAFS5 shows monolithic cross-section directly connecting;
EAFS5 hinge is capable of being a “living hinge” since it is molded [0043];
Fig 4 shows housing engage neck portion)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cap of Willis with a storage compartment as taught by Sorenson in order to beneficially be able to store medicinal or supplementation necessities such as medicine, vitamins or antibiotics for one’s health for use with liquid such as water (Sorenson, Abstract) in the container, advantageously increasing convenience and ease of accessibility during travel and for weight and space saving. Such a modification adding this partition and compartments to an already covered bottle like Willis is shown as obvious to a POSITA by existence in Sorenson.
But Willis/Robbins/Sorenson does not explicitly teach the hinged lid including a seal at an intersection of the lip and the flange.
Kwong, however, teaches a lid (Figs 3 & 5, cover 110) seal at an intersection of a lip and a flange (see examiner annotated Kwong Figure 5; hereinafter “EAFK5”; EAFK5, a lid seal is packing member 116, having “elastic force” page 5 para third to last (of NPL 10/23/2024)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cap of Willis/Robbins/Sorenson with a seal in an intersection as taught by Kwong in the intersection of Sorenson’s lip and flange, in order to beneficially upgrade/reinforce the intersection/joint’s seal to better insulate versus a wider variety of environmental degradation effects for a wider variety of contents (Kwong, page 5 para last, “The airtightness of the accommodating space 141”, Fig 2).
Regarding claim 18, Willis/Robbins/Sorenson/Kwong already teaches the open edge (EAFS5, 130) is at an opening to the second compartment (EAFS5 second compartment shows an opening 130 that is at Willis’ open edge). See details in the parent claim 17 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 19, Willis/Robbins/Sorenson/Kwong already teaches the lid is a hinged lid (EAFS5 hinged lid), the hinged lid is monolithically formed (EAFS5 shows monolithic cross-section directly connecting hinged lid defining elements) with the housing (EAFS5 housing). See details in the parent claim 17 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 20, Willis/Robbins/Sorenson/Kwong already teaches the housing (EAFS5 housing) is configured to engage (Sorenson, Fig 4 shows housing engage neck portion) a neck portion (EAFS5 neck portion) of the container, and
to receive the neck portion within the second compartment (EAFS5 second compartment has neck portion received). See details in the parent claim 17 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 23, Willis/Robbins/Sorenson/Kwong already teaches the hinged lid (EAFS5 hinged lid) includes a living hinge (EAFS5 hinge is capable of being a “living hinge” since it is molded [0043]). See details in the parent claim 17 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 24, Willis/Robbins/Sorenson/Kwong already teaches the housing (EAFS5 housing) defines an opening in a top surface (EAFS5 top opening of first compartment),
the hinged lid (EAFS5) covering the opening in the closed position (EAFS5 lid necessarily covers the top opening in closed position), and
the partition extends from an edge of the opening and forms a cup-shaped recess (EAFS5 first compartment forms a cup shape with the partition that extends from an edge of the top opening) so as to define the first and second compartments (EAFS5 first and second compartment). See details in the parent claim 17 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claims 25-26 (same limitation, different dependency), Willis/Robbins/Sorenson/Kwong does not explicitly teach the projection forms an exact right angle with the outer wall.
Robbins, however, considers a similar cap wall snap fit projection forming a right angle with the outer wall (EAFR6, Fig 6, col 4, lines 11-24, since "projecting rectangular bead 44" snaps over “rectangular bead 42” of a container rim, and a “rectangular groove” is defined by walls 38 and 36 that 44 projects from, a rectangular shape abuts another rectangular shape. They also note that this projection shape is “in the manner of a typical snap-fit closure”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the projection shape of Willis to be rectangular as in two rectangles abutting forming a right angle with the outer wall as taught by Robbins, instead of a tangential bead to the outer wall as in Willis, since it has been held that the configuration/shape of the claimed container element (e.g. lid projection/snap fit) was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container element was significant. MPEP 2144.04 IV-B. Also, similarly to a POSITA, it is no more than a simple substitution of one snap-fit shape for another that is known in the art for snap fitting and would only produce the predictable results of a snap fit. MPEP 2143 I-B. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willis/Robbins/Sorenson/Kwong in view of US Pat 4230230 issued to Mumford (hereinafter “Mumford”).
Regarding claim 3, Willis does not explicitly teach the body portion (EAFW26 the body portion) and the housing of the cap (EAFW26 the cap housing of the open cavity) have different cross-sectional shapes.
Mumford, however, teaches a similar cap housing a cover (Fig 1, an overcap 10 housing a threaded cover closure 18) comprising: different cross-sectional shapes (Fig 2, 10 is circular in cross-section top-view, whereas 18 is rounded rectangular thereby non-circular as indicated by the outermost edge being deformed to not meet circle 25, Fig 3).
The purpose of different cross-sectional shapes of cap and cover is to enhance attractiveness (Mumford, col 3, lines 31-32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cover circular cross-sectional shape of Willis to be different than the cap circular cross-sectional shape as taught by Mumford in order to advantageously enhance attractiveness of the decoration factor of the cap and cover.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willis/Robbins/Sorenson/Kwong in view of US Pat 5038957 issued to Gross (hereinafter “Gross”).
Regarding claim 22, Willis/Robbins/Sorenson/Kwong does not explicitly teach the housing (EAFW26 the cap housing) is a particular shape.
Gross, however, teaches a housing (Fig 2, housing space defined by wall 40, walls 42 and peripheral oval wall 34) within a lid (Fig 3, closure 30) that is one (examiner chooses “one oval” shape) of oblong, oval, rectangular, hexagonal, and octagonal.
The purpose of an oval shaped housing within a lid is to fit a typical container (Gross, col 3, lines 50-51). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lid housing shape of Willis to be ovular as taught by Gross in order to advantageously be easily adapted to a typical container, thereby maximizing market usability to therefore increase profit potential.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached on 5712705055. 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.
/ERIC C BALDRIGHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733 18 September 2026
Prosecution Insights