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 .
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment / Request for Reconsideration-After Non-Final Rejection filed on February 9, 2026 wherein: claim(s) 1-3, 7-8, 11, 13-14 were amended, claim(s) 16-20 canceled, and claim(s) 21-25 are new. Examiner notes amendments in claim(s) are directed to overcome rejections under 35 USC § 102 / 35 USC § 103. Therefore, claim(s) 1-15, 21-25 are pending and will be examined.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15, 21-25 is/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-Al A 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, recites --1. (Currently Amended) An apparatus comprising:
a first container comprising a first end and a second end, wherein:
the first end comprises a first fastener located on a first surface of the first container;
and
the second end comprises:
a second fastener positioned on a second surface of the first container,
wherein the first surface is different from the second surface; and
a structure comprising apertures, wherein the apertures comprise a first size on a first side of the structure and a second size on a second side of the structure; [line(s) 1-10] wherein --first surface is different from the second surface-- is vague and indefinite since it may mean “first surface” perimetrically larger / smaller” than “second surface”. For purposes of examination --first surface is different from the second surface--will be interpreted as “first surface” perimetrically larger than “second surface”.
Claim(s) 2-10, 21, 23-24 rejected by dependency of claim 1.
Claim 11, recites --11. (Currently Amended) A method of manufacturing an apparatus, the method comprising:
providing a first container, the first container comprising a first end and a second end,
wherein:
the first end comprises a first fastener located on a first surface of the first container and the second end comprises:
a second fastener positioned on a second surface of the first container,
wherein the first surface is different from the second surface;-- wherein --first surface is different from the second surface-- [line(s) 8] is vague and indefinite since it may mean “first surface” perimetrically larger / smaller” than “second surface”. For purposes of examination --first surface is different from the second surface--will be interpreted as “first surface” perimetrically larger than “second surface”.
Claim(s) 12-15, 22, 25 rejected by dependency of claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-13, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20150239600A1) hereinafter PATEL, in view of Xu (China Patent Application Publication CN110881781A) hereinafter XU.
Regarding claim 1, PATEL teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 10 below) an apparatus 2 comprising:
a first container P1-01 comprising a first end P4-01 and a second end P4-02, wherein:
the first end P4-01 comprises a first fastener P4-03 located on a first surface P4-05 of the first container P1-01
and
the second end P4-02 comprises:
a second fastener P4-04 positioned on a second surface P4-06 of the first container P1-01,
wherein the first surface P4-05 is substantially similar from the second surface P4-06; and
a structure P8-01 comprising apertures P8-02;
a first lid 32 comprising a third end P4-07 and a fourth end P4-08,
wherein the fourth end P4-08 comprises a third fastener P4-09 located on a surface of the first lid 32,
wherein the first lid 32 is configured to be coupled to the first end P4-01 of the first container P1-01 by coupling together the third fastener P4-09 and the first fastener P4-03; and
a second container 14 including a fifth end P4-10 and a sixth end P4-11,
wherein the fifth end P4-10 comprises a fourth fastener P4-12 located on a third surface P4-13 of the second container 14,
wherein the sixth end P4-11 comprises a fifth fastener P4-14 located on a fourth surface P4-15 of the second container 14,
wherein the third surface P4-13 is different from the fourth surface P4-15, and
wherein the second container 14 is configured to be coupled to the second end P4-02 of the first container P1-01 by coupling together the fourth fastener P4-12 and the second fastener P4-04.
PATEL fails to teach first surface P4-05 is different from the second surface P4-06.
PATEL fails to teach apertures P8-02 comprise a first size on a first side P8-03 of the structure P8-01 and a second size on a second side P8-04 of the structure P8-01.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified first surface P4-05 / second surface P4-06 being different in the apparatus 2 of PATEL being different towards meetings design requirements since a change of form / shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ47.
Moreover, XU teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 2 below) a travel tea making cup X1-01 wherein apertures 18 comprise a first size on a first side X2-01 of the structure 13 and a second size on a second side X2-01 of the structure 13 to meet design requirements.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified structure P8-01 in the apparatus 2 of PATEL with structure 13 as taught in travel tea making cup X1-01 of XU to meet design requirements.
PNG
media_image1.png
700
409
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
656
408
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
945
511
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
782
409
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
793
346
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
805
393
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
930
412
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
917
400
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
886
368
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
943
382
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
812
452
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
417
516
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, PATEL and XU (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. PATEL further teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 10 above) apparatus 2, wherein: the second container 14 further comprises walls P3-01 defining a cavity P3-02.
Regarding claim 4, PATEL and XU (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. PATEL fails to teach (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 10 above) apparatus 2, wherein the first container P1-01 is comprised of a transparent static-free material.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected a material for the first container P1-01 (i. e., transparent static-free material) in the apparatus 2 of PATEL and XU to meet design requirements. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 5, PATEL and XU (as applied to claim 4 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. PATEL fails to teach (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 10 above) apparatus 2, wherein the first lid 32 and the second container 14 are comprised of the transparent static-free material.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected a material for the first lid 32 / second container 14 (i. e., transparent static-free material) in the apparatus 2 of PATEL and XU to meet design requirements. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 6, PATEL and XU (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. PATEL further teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 10 above) apparatus 2, wherein the first fastener P4-03 of the first container P1-01 and the third fastener P4-09 of the first lid 32 comprise threaded fasteners that couple together with each other to couple together the first lid 32 and the first container P1-01.
Regarding claim 8, PATEL and XU (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. PATEL further teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 10 above) apparatus 2, wherein: the first container P1-01 is capable to be configured to contain food for an animal;
the second container 14 is capable to be configured to contain at least one of a vitamin or a calcium supplement; and
the at least one of the vitamin or the calcium supplement can pass from the second container 14 into the first container P1-01 by passing through the apertures P8-02 of the structure P8-01 to coat the food in the first container P1-01.
Regarding claim 9, PATEL and XU (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. PATEL further teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 10 above) apparatus 2, further comprising a third container P1-02 adapted to be coupled to the sixth end P4-11 of the second container 14.
Regarding claim 11, PATEL teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 10 above) a method of manufacturing an apparatus 2 [albeit with different phraseology], the method comprising:
providing a first container P1-01, the first container P1-01 comprising a first end P4-01 and a second end P4-02,
wherein:
the first end P4-01 comprises a first fastener P4-03 located on a first surface P4-05 of the first container P1-01 and the second end P4-02 comprises:
a second fastener P4-04 positioned on a second surface P4-06 of the first container P1-01; and
a structure P8-01 comprising apertures P8-02;
providing a first lid 32, the first lid 32 comprising a third end P4-07 and a fourth end P4-08, wherein the fourth end P4-08 comprises a third fastener P4-09 located on a surface of the first lid 32, wherein the first lid 32 is configured to be coupled to the first end P4-01 of the first container P1-01 by coupling together the third fastener P4-09 and the first fastener P4-03; and
providing a second container 14, the second container 14 including a fifth end P4-10 and a sixth end P4-11, wherein the fifth end P4-10 comprises a fourth fastener P4-12 located on a third surface P4-13 of the second container 14, wherein the sixth end P4-11 comprises a fifth fastener P4-14 located on a fourth surface P4-15 of the second container 14, wherein the third surface P4-13 is different from the fourth surface P4-15, and wherein the second container 14 is configured to be coupled to the second end P4-02 of the first container P1-01 by coupling together the fourth fastener P4-12 and the second fastener P4-04.
PATEL fails to teach first surface P4-05 is different from the second surface P4-06.
PATEL fails to teach apertures P8-02 comprise a first size on a first side P8-03 of the structure P8-01 and a second size on a second side P8-04 of the structure P8-01.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified first surface P4-05 / second surface P4-06 being different in the method of PATEL being different towards meetings design requirements since a change of form / shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ47.
Moreover, XU teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 2 above) a travel tea making cup X1-01 wherein apertures 18 comprise a first size on a first side X2-01 of the structure 13 and a second size on a second side X2-01 of the structure 13 to meet design requirements.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified method in the apparatus 2 of PATEL with travel tea making cup X1-01 of XU to meet design requirements.
Regarding claim 12, PATEL and XU (as applied to claim 11 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. PATEL further teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 10 above) method [albeit with different phraseology], further providing a third container P1-02, the third container P1-02 configured to be coupled to the sixth end P4-11 of the second container 14.
Regarding claim 13, PATEL and XU (as applied to claim 11 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. PATEL further teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 10 above) method [albeit with different phraseology], wherein providing the second container 14 further comprises providing walls P3-01 defining a cavity P3-02 in the second container 14.
Regarding claim 15, PATEL and XU (as applied to claim 11 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. PATEL further teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 10 above) method [albeit with different phraseology], wherein the first fastener P4-03 of the first container P1-01 and the third fastener P4-09 of the first lid 32 comprise threaded fasteners that couple together with each other to couple together the first lid 32 and the first container P1-01.
Claim(s) 7, 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PATEL, in view of XU, in further view of Huang (Taiwan Patent Application Publication TWM334829U) hereinafter HUANG.
Regarding claim 7, PATEL and XU (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. PATEL fails to teach (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 10 above) apparatus 2, wherein: the third end P4-07 of the first lid 32 comprises a first protrusion, a flap comprising a second protrusion, and a hinge.
However, HUANG teaches (see FIG. 2 - FIG. 3 below) apparatus H2-01, wherein: the third end H2-02 of the first lid 3 comprises a first protrusion H3-01, a flap 32 comprising a second protrusion H3-02, and a hinge H3-03.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified first lid 32 in the apparatus 2 of PATEL and XU with first lid 3 as taught in apparatus H2-01 of HUANG for ease of opening.
PNG
media_image13.png
844
490
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
915
526
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 23, PATEL, XU, and HUANG (as applied to claim 7 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. The combination of PATEL (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 10 above), XU (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 2 above), and HUANG (see FIG. 2 - FIG. 3 above) further teaches apparatus 2, wherein the flap 32 (HUANG, FIG. 3) pivots about the hinge H3-03 to allow access to an internal portion of the first container P1-01 when the first lid 32 is coupled to the first container P1-01 and when the flap 32 is in an open position.
Regarding claim 24, PATEL, XU, and HUANG (as applied to claim 23 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. The combination of PATEL (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 10 above), XU (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 2 above), and HUANG (see FIG. 2 - FIG. 3 above) further teaches apparatus 2, wherein the first protrusion H3-01 and the second protrusion H3-02 are located and sized to create a snap-fit connection with each other to keep the flap 32 (HUANG, FIG. 3) in a closed position and to mitigate the flap 32 (HUANG, FIG. 3) from moving during operation of the apparatus 2.
Regarding claim 25, PATEL and XU (as applied to claim 11 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. PATEL fails to teach (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 10 above) method [albeit with different phraseology], wherein:
the third end P4-07 of the first lid 32 comprises a first protrusion, a flap comprising a second protrusion, and a hinge;
the flap pivots about the hinge to allow access to an internal portion of the first container P1-01 when the first lid 32 is coupled to the first container P1-01; and
the first protrusion and the second protrusion are located and sized to create a snap-fit connection with each other to mitigate the flap from moving during operation of the apparatus 2.
However, HUANG teaches (see FIG. 2 - FIG. 3 above) a method [albeit with different phraseology] of manufacturing an apparatus H2-01, wherein:
the third end H2-02 of the first lid 3 comprises a first protrusion H3-01, a flap 32 comprising a second protrusion H3-02, and a hinge H3-03;
the flap 32 pivots about the hinge H3-03 to allow access to an internal portion of the first container 1 when the first lid 3 is coupled to the first container 1; and
the first protrusion H3-01 and the second protrusion H3-02 are located and sized to create a snap-fit connection with each other to mitigate the flap 32 from moving during operation of the apparatus H2-01 for ease of opening.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified first lid 32 in the method of PATEL and XU with method as taught in apparatus H2-01 of HUANG for ease of opening.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PATEL, in view of XU, in further view of Seichei (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20200087050A1) hereinafter SEICHEI.
Regarding claim 10, PATEL and XU (as applied to claim 9 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. PATEL fails to teach (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 10 above) apparatus 2, wherein: the third container P1-02 comprises a recess on an external surface of the third container P1-02; and the recess is adapted to receive a label.
However, SEICHEI teaches (see FIG. 3, FIG. 56 - FIG. 57, FIG. 60 below) apparatus S56-01, wherein: the second container S57-02 comprises a recess 56 on an external surface of the second container S57-02; and the recess 56 is adapted to receive a label for communication purposes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified third container P1-02 in the apparatus 2 of PATEL and XU with second container S57-02 as taught in apparatus S56-01 of SEICHEI for communication purposes.
PNG
media_image15.png
508
516
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
752
636
media_image16.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image17.png
840
915
media_image17.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image18.png
947
470
media_image18.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: claim(s) 3, 21, 14, 22 are allowable because the prior art of record (i.e., PATEL, XU, HUANG, and SEICHEI) anticipate or make obvious:
--an apparatus comprising: a first container / a second container-- [claim 1],
--apparatus of claim 1, wherein: the second container further comprises walls defining a cavity-- [claim 2],
--a method of manufacturing an apparatus, the method comprising: providing a first container / second container-- [claim 11], and
--method of claim 11, wherein providing the second container further comprises providing walls defining a cavity-- [claim 13]
they, alone or in combination, do not teach the specific structure of a:
--apparatus of claim 2, wherein the second container further comprises a second lid sized to create a friction fit with the walls to seal the cavity-- [claim 3],
--apparatus of claim 3, wherein when the second lid does not seal the cavity-- [claim 21],
--method of claim 13, further comprising providing a second lid sized to create a friction fit with the walls to seal the cavity.-- [claim 14],
--method of claim 14, wherein when the second lid does not seal the cavity-- [claim 22].
Moreover, it would not be obvious to further modify the respective references to satisfy these limitations, as such modifications would cause the references to operate in a fashion that is inconsistent with that which was intended by their respective inventors. Accordingly, such modifications would be highly indicative of the use of improper hindsight reasoning.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments / arguments in the reply filed February 9, 2026 regarding rejections (under 35 USC § 102) of claim(s) 1-2, 6, 8-9, 11-13, 15 have been considered and found persuasive. However, upon further examination in view of aforementioned amendments, rejection of claim(s) 1-15, 21-25 under 35 USC § 112(b) stand.
Moreover, applicant's arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 4-13, 15 and new claim(s) 23-25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejections (i.e., under 35 USC § 103) does not rely on exactly all references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the Applicant’s argument.
With respect to the art rejections, in accordance with MPEP 2111.01, during examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 70 USPQ2D 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Jang (South Korea Patent Application Publication KR20200144008A): Teaches a “tumbler” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Macfadyen (U. K. Patent Application Publication GB2357072A): Teaches a “container” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Hon et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20200156823A1): Teaches a “container(s)” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Cerasani (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20180368623A1): Teaches a “container assembly” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCOS JAVIER RODRIGUEZ MOLINA whose telephone number is (571) 272-8947. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM.
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, ANTHONY D. STASHICK can be reached on (571) 272-4561. 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.
/M.J.R.M./
/Anthony D Stashick/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights