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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 3, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 has two periods. Claim 2 has a misplaced period. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8-9 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 8, the specification does not provide support for a surrounding wall between a body member and an open top. Regarding claim 13, the specification does not provide support for a body member having a spherical shape. Regarding claim 14, the specification does not provide support for a body member made of aluminum.
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 1-5 and 8 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.
The term “larger” in claims 1 and 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “larger” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 2 is considered indefinite because it is unclear what the body member is surrounding.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 12 only recites the lid recited in claim 1. Therefore, claim 12 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 8, 11-13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaddy (2029997) in view of Ri (JPH07116048A).
Regarding claim 1, Gaddy discloses a container for crushing condiments contained therein, the container comprising: a body member (1, 2, 3, 4) having a flat bottom wall (2) and an opened top (see annotated Fig. 1 below) with a surrounding sidewall (1, 3, 4) therebetween wherein an internal chamber is formed therein (Fig. 1); the body member having a three-dimensional shape (Figs. 1-4); the surrounding wall being made of a squeezable flexible material wherein condiments contained within the internal chamber can be crushed (col. 1, lines 44-51); the opened top forms a surrounding rim (see annotated Fig. 1) for securely engaging with a lid (7); the surrounding wall has a continuous cross-sectional form that extends to the rim (Fig. 1) and the lid having a plurality of spaced apart orifices (8) for dispensing the condiments contained within the internal chamber.
Gaddy DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the spaced apart orifices are substantially larger than conventional condiment shakers. Attention, however, is directed to the Ri reference, which teaches that spaced apart orifices may be any suitable shape and size depending on the type of seasoning stored in a container (par. 0010).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Gaddy reference in view of the teachings of the Ri reference by configuring the spaced apart orifices to be substantially larger than conventional condiment shakers for the purpose of allowing a user to dispense seasonings that are substantially larger than seasonings in conventional condiment shakers.
PNG
media_image1.png
534
562
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, a circumference of the bottom wall has a smaller circumference relative to a circumference of the body member (Fig. 1 of Gaddy).
Regarding claim 3, the body member has a shape selected from the group consisting of polygonal, circular, oval, triangular, and elliptical (Figs. 1-4 of Gaddy).
Regarding claim 6, Gaddy discloses a method for dispensing condiments contained within the container of claim 1 (Fig. 4 of Gaddy), comprising the steps of:
a. placing condiments within the container through the opened top (Fig. 1 of Gaddy);
b. securing the lid with the opened top (Fig. 1 of Gaddy);
c. squeezing the surrounding wall of the body member (Fig. 4 of Gaddy); and
d. dispensing the condiments from the body member through the orifices of the lid (Fig. 4 of Gaddy).
Regarding claim 8, Gaddy discloses a container for crushing condiments contained therein, the container comprising: a body member (1, 2, 3, 4) having an opened top (see annotated Fig. 1) with a surrounding sidewall (1, 3, 4) therebetween wherein an internal chamber is formed therein (Fig. 1); the body member having a three-dimensional shape (Figs. 1-4); the surrounding wall being made of a flexible material wherein condiments contained within the internal chamber can be crushed (col. 1, lines 44-51); the opened top forms a rim (see annotate Fig. 1) for securely engaging with a lid (7); the lid having a plurality of spaced apart orifices (8) for dispensing the condiments contained within the internal chamber; and the body member surrounding wall extends to the rim (Fig. 1).
Gaddy DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the orifices are substantially larger than conventional condiment shakers and the three-dimensional shape being triangular.
Regarding the orifices, attention is directed to the Ri reference, which teaches that spaced apart orifices may be any suitable shape and size depending on the type of seasoning stored in a container (par. 0010).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Gaddy reference in view of the teachings of the Ri reference by configuring the orifices to be substantially larger than conventional condiment shakers for the purpose of allowing a user to dispense seasonings that are substantially larger than seasonings in a conventional condiment shaker.
Regarding the shape, Gaddy discloses that the shape is bulbular or any shape that can be conveniently held and pressed (col. 1, lines 1-9 and 34-37). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a three-dimensional triangular shape because Applicant has not disclosed that a three-dimensional triangular shape provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Gaddy’s container and Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with either the bulbular body member or the claimed three-dimensional triangular body member because both body members would perform the same function of allowing a user to store a condiment in a squeezable container. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Gaddy to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Gaddy. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claims 11-12 and 15, the lid is flat (see 108 of Ri).
Regarding claim 13, the body member has a spherical shape (Figs. 1-4 of Gaddy).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaddy in view of Ri as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Koh (20100252578).
Regarding claim 4, Gaddy DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the body member is made of a material selected from the group consisting of silicone, cellophane, plastic, or aluminum paper. Attention, however, is directed to the Koh reference, which discloses a body member is made of a material selected from the group consisting of silicone, cellophane, plastic, or aluminum paper (par. 0017).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the Gaddy reference in view of the teachings of the Koh reference by forming the body member from a material selected from the group consisting of silicone, cellophane, plastic, and aluminum paper, since 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, Gaddy DIFFERS in that it does not disclose a cover having a closed bottom wall with a surrounding lip that extends downwardly to securely engage with the outer surrounding perimeter of the lid. Attention, however, is directed to the Koh reference, which discloses a cover (406) having a closed bottom wall with a surrounding lip (see annotated Fig. 2D below) that extends downwardly to securely engage with the outer surrounding perimeter of a lid (401).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the Gaddy reference in view of the teachings of the Koh reference by employing a cover for the purpose of preventing the product from leaking out of the container.
PNG
media_image2.png
454
767
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaddy in view of Ri as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Bodum (20080035676).
Regarding claims 9-10, Gaddy DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the lid forms a grid with a plurality of parallel bars with each horizontal bar traversing a vertical bar. Attention, however, is directed to the Bodum reference, which discloses the lid forms a grid with a plurality of parallel bars with each horizontal bar traversing a vertical bar (Fig. 5). Bodum teaches that a lid in the form of a grid serves as a distribution aid (par. 0019).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the Gaddy reference in view of the teachings of the Bodum reference by using a grid to aid distribution of the seasoning.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaddy in view of Ri as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Kurosawa et al. (20050040181).
Regarding claim 14, Gaddy DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the body member is made of aluminum. Attention, however, is directed to the Kurosawa reference, which discloses the body member is made of aluminum (par. 0088).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the Gaddy reference in view of the teachings of the Kurosawa reference by using aluminum material, since 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 3, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Gaddy does not disclose that condiments contained within the internal chamber are crushed, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding the rim, see annotated Fig. 1 above.
Regarding the lid, claim 1 does not include a structural difference between the claimed lid and the Gaddy lid. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.
Applicant’s argument that the Gaddy container is pear shaped is not persuasive because the lower portion of a pear is circular or elliptical, which falls within the scope of claim 3. It is further noted that the only reference to “circular” in Applicant’s specification is with respect to the cross-section of the container (see par. 0016 of Applicant’s specification). Fig. 3 of Gaddy clearly shows that the container has a circular cross-section. Even if Gaddy did not disclose a circular shape, configuring the container with the claimed shapes would have been an obvious matter of design choice because Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed shapes provide an advantage, are used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem and the claimed container and the Gaddy container are both squeezable containers irrespective of their shapes.
Applicant’s argument with respect to claim 6 that Gaddy doesn’t teach crushing condiment is not persuasive, since claim 6 does not recite crushing condiment.
Applicant’s argument that Gaddy does not show a three-dimensional internal body or substantial space is not persuasive because these features were not recited in the claims.
It is unclear what is meant by “Gaddy discloses a neck that works with the restricted neck to functionally create a a lower bottom that is functionally utilized to finger grips. The present invention body member contains no restricted curve area.”
With respect to the size of the openings, Applicant has not provided a standard opening size that one of ordinary skill in the art would consider a “normal” opening size.
Applicant’s argument that Koh does not teach a surrounding lip is not persuasive because Koh shows a surrounding lip in Figs. 1, 2A, 2D, and 3-6 (see annotated Fig. 2D above).
Applicant’s argument with respect to triangular shape and the neck is unclear. Applicant discloses a threaded rim, which one of ordinary skill in the art would normally construe as the neck of the container, but Applicant argues that a triangular shape would not work with a container that has a “neck and restricted area.” It is unclear what a “restricted area” is and why Applicant believes a container cannot have both a triangular cross-section and a neck.
Regarding the aluminum material, it is 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. It is also noted that Applicant’s specification only provides support for a container formed using aluminum paper.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DONNELL ALAN LONG whose telephone number is (571)270-5610. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8AM-5PM.
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, PAUL DURAND can be reached at 571-272-4459. 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.
/DONNELL A LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754