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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s arguments, filed December 12, 2025, with respect to the Election of Species Requirement have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Election of Species Requirement has been withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: There is a period in the middle of the claim, see MPEP 608.01(m), which states “Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. See Fressola v. Manbeck, 36 USPQ2d 1211 (D.D.C. 1995).” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 2 and 5-6 recite “an R F transmitter”, it is believed to be a typographical error, as the proper term is --an RF transmitter --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 4 recites “an o ring”, it is believed to be a typographical error, as the proper term is --an o-ring--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because the claim does not depend from a previous claim, though appears to be dependent from a previous claim due to grammatical nature. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 3-6 and14 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 3, the phrases "or otherwise" in line 6 and “or other” in line 8, renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or otherwise" and “or other”), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the power source" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation " a motor driven cam" in line 8. It is unclear if this recitation is in reference to the previously claimed motor driven cam or a new, second motor driven cam.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "a hidden locking switch configured to activate a motor driven cam" in line 8. It is unclear if this recitation is in reference to the previously claimed hidden locking switch and motor driven cam or a new, second hidden locking switch and motor driven cam.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "The keyless battery powered locking container cap cover receiver circuitry" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "The keyless battery powered locking container cap cover receiver circuitry" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the invention” in line 5, it is unclear what is included and what is excluded by this claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-9, 12-14, 16 and 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0074237 to Muller et al.
Muller et al. disclose a keyless battery powered locking container cap cover (100) configured for attachment around a container cap (H) while remaining in an unlocked configuration following attachment comprising: a hinged left element (102a), a hinged right element (102b) comprising generally annular structures, further comprising bottom shelves (104) to prevent lifting off, further comprising a lid (cover structure shown in figure 1) thereby fully encompassing the container cap that instantly locks during unauthorized removal attempts thereby eliminating theft or contamination of the containers contents or theft or damage to the original container cap (shown in figure 1), as in claim 1.
Muller et al. also disclose all power is immediately turned off and remains turned off following the locking or unlocking of the keyless locking container cap cover around an existing container cap thereby saving battery power (paragraph 60, on only during movement between locked and unlocked states), as in claim 2, further comprising primary latching and locking methods where the primary latching method comprises a flat metal latching spring, where a secondary locking method (112) comprises a spring (114) mounted locking pin (112a); where a hidden locking switch (140) is configured to activate a motor driven cam (122); where the cam instantly initiates the locking function; where a motorized device (124) is configured to drive the spring-loaded mounting pin into or out of a locking position (by blocking 112a); where a power source (126) provides power to the motor driven cam, or motorized device, as in claim 3, configured to conceal the hidden locking switch (140) configured to activate the motor driven cam (122) thereby instantly initiating the locking function that latches the hinged left element and hinged right element together when rotated to a closed position around a container cap where the metal latching spring is positioned in front of a compression spring that further delays the unlatching of the metal latching spring thereby allowing more time for the latching function (paragraph 78), as in claim 4, wherein the keyless battery powered locking container cap cover is configured to be on only during locking or unlocking periods and off at all other times (paragraph 60, on only during movement between locked and unlocked states), as in claim 5.
Muller et al. further disclose the bottom shelf is configured for removal from a container cap by only partially opening the hinged left and hinged right elements (paragraph 62), as in claim 7, and configured to allow venting or pressure relief from an open area of the bottom shelfs (gaps between the respective shelves), as in claim 8, as well as configured with overlapping seam covers configured to prevent prying apart the hinged left element from the hinged right element (figures 4 and 5 show the locking projections overlapping within the container cap cover), as in claim 9.
Muller et al. additionally disclose the keyless battery powered locking container cap cover remains in a locked configuration after attachment (paragraph 71), as in claim 13, and a horizontal peripheral rib (108) on the inner vertical walls of the hinged left element and the hinged right element configured to trap and snugly hold a custom attachment adaptor (108a) between the peripheral rib and the bottom shelf where the custom attaching adaptors are configured to adapt to the hinged left element and the hinged right element to fit different container caps thereby providing a universal device whereby the same device fits multiple applications by only utilizing a custom attaching adaptor (paragraph 16), as in claim 14, as well as not requiring a Department of Transportation approval (there is not recitation of an approval requirement from a Department of Transportation, thus it is considered that an approval is not required), as in claim 16.
Muller et al. also disclose a slot in the right hinged element or a slot in the left hinged element allowing a container cap's lever to protrude therefrom (gap between 104a and 104b), as in claim 18, and that will frictionally rotate around a container cap when locked after attachment thereto (engagement between 104 and F; figure 1), as in claim 19, as well as that will frictionally rotate around a container cap cover (engagement between 104 and F; figure 1), as in claim 20, wherein the keyless battery powered locking container cap cover configured with a slot allowing a container cap that utilizes an attachment seal lever to protrude through (gap between 104a and 104b), as in claim 21.
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 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller et al., as applied above, in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0069121 to Wood.
Muller et al. disclose the invention substantially as claimed. However, Muller et al. do not disclose a USB charging port thereby enabling recharging. Wood teaches of a keyless battery powered locking container cap (12) configured for attachment around a jar (14) while remaining in an unlocked configuration following attachment comprising: bottom shelves (24) to prevent lifting off, further comprising a lid (14A) that instantly locks during unauthorized removal attempts thereby eliminating theft or contamination of the containers contents or theft or damage to the original container cap (shown in figures 5-8), further comprising a USB charging port (20) thereby enabling recharging (paragraphs 27, 31).
All of the component parts are known in Muller et al. and Wood. The only difference is the combination of the “old elements” into a single device by mounting them on a single chassis. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a USB port as taught by Wood onto the locking container cap in Muller et al. to charge the power source, since the locking and securing of a container cap is in no way dependent on the manner the power source is charged, and the USB port could be used in combination with the locking container cap to achieve the predictable results of recharging the power source.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 10, 11 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The claims are allowable over the prior art of record because the teachings of the references taken as a whole do not teach or render obvious the combination set forth, including that of an RF transmitter configured to look like a cigarette lighter plug that can be plugged into a power socket or further configured to permanently mount in a dash panel or other select location where it can be hard wired to an ignition switch or any convenient power source so that when activated; a separate lid comprising a 360-degree bottom ledge that is captured by female channels in the hinged left end hinged right elements; a low-profile battery where fire rated Styrofoam thermally insulating panels are positioned above and below the battery further comprising a peel and stick fire rated polyester adhered to and holding in position the battery components assembly; and opposing magnets of like charge positioned in the hinged left element and the hinged right element configured to act as a spring and repel the hinged left element from the hinged right element when unlocked (15)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to container lid locking assemblies:
U.S. Patent Number 12,175,850 to Muller et al.; U.S. Patent Number 12,123,225 to Vinnakota et al.; U.S. Patent Number 10,940,984 to Ponticelli, Sr. et al.; U.S. Patent Number 9,765,551 to Sayegh et al.; U.S. Patent Number 9,472,073 to Yang; U.S. Patent Number 9,311,797 to Yang; U.S. Patent Number 8,269,631 to Yang; U.S. Patent Number 7,650,768 to Fawcett et al.; U.S. Patent Number 7,583,195 to Chua et al.; U.S. Patent Number 7,394,376 to Sayegh et al.; U.S. Patent Number 7,262,699 to Marsilio et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J BOSWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-7054. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 9-4; F 9-12.
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, Kristina Fulton can be reached at 571-272-7376. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J BOSWELL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675
CJB /cb/
March 12, 2026