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 argument filed 12/30/2025 in response to Office Action 10/1/2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive for at least the following reasons:
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Applicant argues against the evidenced conclusion of insufficient support for the new matter “right angle projection” in the 35 USC 112a. Applicant argues that since the container neck inset is “L-shape” and said inset shape “mirrors the lip shape” (to snap fit the inset to the cap lip/projection [0075]), the lip shape must be “L-shape” too, thereby supporting the “right angle projection/lip” claim limitation (pages 8-9). However, “mirrors” does not mean “same as”, “L-shape” is a broader term than “right angle”, and mirroring a shape does not always mean the whole shape nor does it specify what part of the shape, so there is still no evidence of any right angle. Therefore the 35 USC 112a is proper. Examiner notes that even if an argument could be made that the right angle exists, the term is fully rejected in the rejection analysis below.
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Applicant argues again that the primary prior art Willis does not teach “the projection forming a right angle with the [cap] outer wall” (pages 9-11). However, Robbins not Willis is used. Please see a detailed analysis in the rejection below with Robbins (“right angle” OA page 7).
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Applicant argues that Robbins does not modify Willis in a way that makes a right angle (pages 11-13). Examiner disagrees, pointing out that Robbins modifies the projection/lip shape of Willis thereby making the cap outer wall to projection a right angle as claimed (“right angle” OA page 7).
Also the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). And a person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. MPEP 2141.03 I.
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 1-3, 9, 11-12, 17-20 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the new matter requirement. “Forming a right angle” is new matter and must be canceled. The drawings are not to scale [0029] and the specification does not disclose 90 degrees or a right angle or perpendicularity.
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, 23 and 24 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 (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 in shoulder), and
a neck portion (EAFW26 neck portion), the neck portion defining an open end and a sidewall (EAFW26 neck sidewall defines an open end);
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, the open edge including a projection that extends inwardly towards the open cavity, the projection forming perpendicular with the outer wall and configured to engage the stepped inset of the body portion in a snap fit (EAFW26 projection extends perpendicularly inward from an open edge of the outer wall, and engages the body, while the projection snap-fit engages the stepped inset),
the projection extending inwardly from a bottom portion of the outer wall such that a bottom surface of the projection and a bottom surface of the outer wall are a single continuous surface extending in a horizontal direction (EAFW26, said inward projection is shown forming a single continuous bottom surface with its bottom surface and the outer wall bottom surface in a horizontal direction),
PNG
media_image1.png
678
775
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Additionally, and in the alternative, if an argument may be made that Willis above does not expressly disclose the single continuous surface extending in a horizontal direction claimed, then it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to rearrange the projection down lower along with its groove fit because Applicant has not disclosed that the particular location of projection provides a specific advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves an explicit problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant' s invention to perform equally well with the rearrangement because the snap fit would be retained and no other adjustments would need to be made. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the projection to obtain the invention as claimed. MPEP 2144.04 VI-C. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
But Willis does not explicitly teach that the projection forms a right angle type snap fit.
Robbins however teaches a cap wall snap fit forming a right angle (Fig 6, col 4, lines 11-20, "projecting rectangular bead 44" snaps over 42 of a container rim, and the wall 44 projects from is also “rectangular” (34 and 36 with 38), meaning rectangle projects 44 from a vertical surface (one side of the rectangle formed by 36), thereby is a right angle of 90 degrees exactly, as specified. They also note that this projection shape is “in the manner of a typical snap-fit closure”).
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 forming a right angle with the wall as taught by Robbins, since it has been held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container 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, 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. (Since the Applicant has no support for “right angle” criticality is nonexistent).
But Willis/Robbins does not explicitly teach a storage compartment 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),
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),
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, 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),
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 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
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_image2.png
762
570
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The purpose of a hinged lid compartment is to store medicine, vitamins, antibiotics or flavored mineral (Sorenson, Abstract). 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 for one’s health for use with liquid such as water (Abstract) in the container, advantageously increasing convenience and ease of accessibility during travel and for weight and space saving.
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 seal at an intersection of a lip and a flange (see examiner annotated Kwong Figure 5; hereinafter “EAFK5”).
PNG
media_image3.png
363
410
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The purpose of a seal ring is to form a protect contents. 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 ring as taught by Kwong in order to beneficially enhance the engagement to be watertight or gastight from use of an O-ring type seal for a variety of environmentally degradable/corrodible contents the user may store in the lid’s compartment. Examiner also notes a seal ring is well known to add between a closure/lid and a compartment/container as in MPEP 2144.03 for the same reason as above.
Regarding claim 2, Willis further teaches at least a portion of the body portion extends into the open cavity (EAFW26 the shoulder is a portion of the body and extends into the open cavity).
Regarding claim 9, Willis 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 (EAFW26 a groove is in the stepped inset annularly and snap fits the open edge of the cap).
Regarding claim 11, Willis/Robbins/Sorenson/Kwong already 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 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 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, the open edge including a projection that extends inwardly towards the cavity, the projection forming perpendicular with the outer wall and configured to engage a stepped inset of the body portion in a snap fit (EAFW26 projection extends perpendicularly inward from an open edge of the outer wall, and engages the body, while the projection snap-fit engages the stepped inset),
the projection extending inwardly from a bottom portion of the outer wall such that a bottom surface of the projection and a bottom surface of the outer wall are a single continuous surface extending in a horizontal direction (EAFW26, said inward projection is shown forming a single continuous bottom surface with its bottom surface and the outer wall bottom surface in a horizontal direction),
Additionally, and in the alternative, if an argument may be made that Willis above does not expressly disclose the single continuous surface extending in a horizontal direction claimed, then it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to rearrange the projection down lower along with its groove fit because Applicant has not disclosed that the particular location of projection provides a specific advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves an explicit problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant' s invention to perform equally well with the rearrangement because the snap fit would be retained and no other adjustments would need to be made. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the projection to obtain the invention as claimed. MPEP 2144.04 VI-C. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
But Willis does not explicitly teach that the projection forms a right angle type snap fit.
Robbins however teaches a cap wall snap fit forming a right angle (Fig 6, col 4, lines 11-20, "projecting rectangular bead 44" snaps over 42 of a container rim, and the wall 44 projects from is also “rectangular” (34 and 36 with 38), meaning rectangle projects 44 from a vertical surface (one side of the rectangle formed by 36), thereby is a right angle of 90 degrees exactly, as specified. They also note that this projection shape is “in the manner of a typical snap-fit closure”).
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 forming a right angle with the wall as taught by Robbins, since it has been held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container 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, 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. (Since the Applicant has no support for “right angle” criticality is nonexistent).
But Willis/Robbins does not explicitly teach a storage compartment 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 capable of engaging a housing) configured to engage a housing being 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 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),
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) 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 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
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)
The purpose of a hinged lid compartment is to store medicine, vitamins, antibiotics or flavored mineral (Sorenson, Abstract). 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 for one’s health for use with liquid such as water (Abstract) in the container, advantageously increasing convenience and ease of accessibility during travel and for weight and space saving.
But Willis/Robbins/Sorenson does not explicitly teach the hinged lid including a seal at an intersection of the lip and the flange.
However, Official Notice is given that it is well-known in the art to provide a seal element like an O-ring to a lip/rim of the lid (as in Kwong, EAFK5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the lid lip of Sorenson with a seal in order to beneficially enhance the engagement to be watertight or gastight from use of an O-ring type seal for a variety of contents the user may store in the lid’s compartment. MPEP 2144.03.
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). 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) 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.
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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 26 January 2026